Markus Elfring <markus.elfr...@web.de> writes: >>> * How many software implementations use identical type definitions >>> and function-like macros? >> >> I don't know. > > Can it become interesting to find more about such usage patterns out?
Rule of thumb: for every user reporting an issue, there are several more suffering quietly. How many more? I don't know. A better estimate of how widespread such use is might be useful, but I can't provide one. >> For what it's worth, it's valid C. Unless I'm mistaken, >> Coccinelle tries to support as much of C as it possibly can. > > How do you think about limitations for corresponding software > development resources? > > >> The QEMU project can certainly work around this Coccinelle >> bug / restriction. > > Which adjustments will be chosen? Rename either the typedef or the macro. More complicated than it sounds, because both conform to naming conventions. >>> * How will the evolution be continued around Coccinelle? >> >> Is this a question about Coccinelle's future? > > Yes, of course. > > Are we trying to influence further development anyhow? I'm trying to help the Coccinelle project by reporting an issue, no more, no less :) _______________________________________________ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
