On Tue, 2020-04-28 at 20:17 +0200, Paul Chaignon wrote:
> Thanks for the quick answer!
>
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 07:44:15PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 28 Apr 2020, Paul Chaignon wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I am working on a small semantic patch to annotate specific
> > > variables in
> > > our codebase with __attribute__((aligned(8))). The following
> > > program works
> > > fine.
> > >
> > > @r@
> > > expression e1, e2;
> > > identifier x;
> > > @@
> > > (
> > > struct \(icmphdr\|icmp6hdr\) x
> > > + __attribute__((aligned(8)))
> > > ;
> > > |
> > > struct \(icmphdr\|icmp6hdr\) x
> > > + __attribute__((aligned(8)))
> > > = ...;
> > > )
> > > ... when exists
> > > ctx_load_bytes(e1, e2, &x, ...)
> > >
> > > However, when I replace __attribute__((aligned(8))) with our
> > > internal
> > > macro __align_stack_8, it fails with the following error:
> > >
> > > plus: parse error:
> > > File "/home/paul/cilium/contrib/coccinelle/aligned.cocci",
> > > line 7, column 2, charpos = 77
> > > around = '__align_stack_8',
> > > whole content = + __align_stack_8
> > >
> > > I've tried adding '#define __align_stack_8' in a file passed with
> > > --macro-file, without success. Is this a known limitation for
> > > macros or
> > > am I missing something?
> >
> > Try adding the "metavariable" declaration:
> >
> > attribute name __align_stack_8;
>
> Awesome, that worked. And I think I understand: undeclared
> identifiers are by
> default considered symbols, leading to the parse error.
>
> Unfortunately, my semantic patch now leads to the following changes:
>
> - struct icmphdr icmphdr __align_stack_8;
> + struct icmphdr icmphdr __align_stack_8 __align_stack_8;
>
Hi Paul,
Just FYI if you want to avoid the double attribute problem there,
disable the optional_attributes isomorphism for the rule where you add
the __align_stack_8 attribute. Example:
@disable optional_attributes@
attribute name __align_stack_8;
@@
int foo
+ __align_stack_8
= 2;
With this, any attributes that you don't specify in your SmPL won't be
matched in source code either.
> I would normally add a first case to my conjunction to match on
> already-present attributes, but Coccinelle can't match on attributes
> yet.
Granted, attribute matching on Coccinelle's master branch is far from
perfect, but I think it should work for declarations/assignments.
Hopefully I can get these patches out soon :)
Cheers,
Jaskaran.
> Any workaround?
>
> Paul
> _______________________________________________
> Cocci mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
[email protected]
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
