>> @display@
>> identifier action;
>> type return_type;
>> @@
>> *return_type action(...)
>> {
>> ...
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(action);
>>
>>
>> But I get the following error message so far.
>>
>> elfring@Sonne:~/Projekte/Coccinelle/janitor> spatch --parse-cocci
>> show_exported_functions1.cocci
>> …
>> minus: parse error:
>> File "show_exported_functions1.cocci", line 9, column 1, charpos = 87
>> around = 'EXPORT_SYMBOL',
>> whole content = EXPORT_SYMBOL(action);
>>
>>
>> How are the chances for further software evolution according to such
>> a data processing approach?
>
> Do you have any idea how annoying this comment is?
It seems that we come along different possible interpretations
also for this clarification request.
> Basically, you are saying "I'm surprised about the result,
* My surprise is limited here.
* I have contributed another software test result.
> so someone else should go fix the system so it does what I think it should
> do".
Improvements will depend on corresponding development resources.
> Couldn't you express yourself as "What should I do to get the result I
> expect?".
I usually try to inform contributors about change possibilities.
> That is, put the burden on yourself, rather than shifting it
> immediately to someone else.
It is interesting that you interpret my bug report (or feature request)
in this direction.
> In this case, the problem entirely on your side.
I have got an other impression.
> You should separate the two top-level declarations into two separate rules,
> just like any other two top-level declarations you would like to match.
I can take additional alternatives into account after the failure of
a direct approach.
> You also need a
>
> declarer name EXPORT_SYMBOL;
>
> in the rule that you need to create for matching that part of the code.
Thanks for this information.
@find@
declarer name EXPORT_SYMBOL;
identifier action;
@@
EXPORT_SYMBOL(action);
@display@
identifier find.action;
type return_type;
@@
*return_type action(...)
{
...
}
Would it be nicer if a single SmPL rule will be sufficient instead?
Regards,
Markus
_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
[email protected]
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
