On Sat, 27 Nov 2010, Eric Leblond wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Le jeudi 25 novembre 2010 à 18:55 +0100, Julia Lawall a écrit :
> > On Wed, 24 Nov 2010, Julia Lawall wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for your interest in Coccinelle. I had thought that in the
> > > special
> > > case where the change is only on the variable that it would be able to
> > > make the transformation. Ie, if the second rule were rather written with:
> > >
> > > Packet
> > > - p
> > > + *p = SCMalloc(SIZE_OF_PACKET)
> > > ;
> > >
> > > But I see that this is not working either. I will look into it and hope
> > > to find a solution today or tomorrow.
> >
> > It turned out to be a little more subtle than expected. I will hope to
> > have a working solution soon.
>
> Working on the same code modification, I did not found a way to treat
> the case where I've got multiple Packet variable.
>
> If I use :
> @rule1@
> identifier p;
> identifier func;
> identifier fdl;
> @@
> func(...) {
> ...
> Packet p;
> <...
> (
> - p.fdl
> + p->fdl
> |
> - &(p)
> + p
> )
> ...>
> }
>
> on a file where there is :
> Packet p1;
> Packet p2;
>
> then the modification is only done on p1.
>
> Is there a way to treat all variables at once ?
Yes, it should work better if you move the <... up above the declaration
of Packet. You may also want to change it to <+... ...+> if you want to
be sure there is at least one match.
julia
_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.diku.dk/mailman/listinfo/cocci
(Web access from inside DIKUs LAN only)
