> Based on the LWN articles that I've read, this seems like the perfect
> use-case for coccinelle.
I would expect this also if you are interested in the simple replacement
for the data type of a function parameter.
> However, somehow I'm struggling to write a patch for this.
Are you exploring the software development possibilities together with
the semantic patch language?
> All the documentation that I could get my hands on seems to describe
> more abstract changes that require the use of variables
SmPL metavariables have got their purposes. How do you think about
to discuss a bit more if you will eventually use them also?
> - but as far as I can tell, I need something much simpler:
There are some improvement opportunities in this approach.
> @@
> "struct fasel_foo must be a type name!"
> @@
How did you get the idea to place this test string there?
> - struct fasel_foo
> + struct fasel_bar
>
>
> ...if only I knew what to put between the @@.
Are the other parts of this source code search pattern also incomplete so far?
> Can someone point me in the right direction?
I hope so.
Would the following small SmPL script fit to your expectations?
@data_type_replacement@
@@
char* fasel_foo_print(
-struct fasel_foo
+struct fasel_bar
*ptr) {
// ...
return "this struct fasel_foo string should not change";
}
Regards,
Markus
_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
[email protected]
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
