>> I think I've found a bug in spatch, You showed another opportunity for further development considerations.
>> or maybe I'm just using it wrong. Not really. But the specification in the shown small SmPL script could be adjusted. >> - LIST_FOR_EACH_ENTRY(c,f,g,member) S >> + hlist_for_each_entry(c,f,member) S > Actually, the problem is that you have removed S and dded it back. > Then you are relying on Coccinelle to do the pretty printing, > and all comments will be dropped. Just rewrite your rule as follows, > and everything will be fine: > - LIST_FOR_EACH_ENTRY(c,f,g,member) > + hlist_for_each_entry(c,f,member) > S How do you think about further possibilities? Can it be also sufficient to express only the source code adjustment for two details? * Replacement of a macro name * Deletion (or omission) of a parameter @adjustment@ expression ex; statement S; @@ -LIST_FOR_EACH_ENTRY +hlist_for_each_entry (..., ..., -ex, ...) S Regards, Markus _______________________________________________ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
