Hi all,
Thanks for your help. This is now resolved!
Kindly,
Thomas
On Tue, 16 Mar 2021 at 07:20, Julia Lawall <julia.law...@inria.fr> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, 15 Mar 2021, Mansour Moufid wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Mar 14, 2021, 20:43 Thomas Adam <tho...@xteddy.org> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I can see I was as clear as mud with my explanation -- apologies
> > for
> > that, so let me try again.
> >
> > In my original example:
> >
> > struct monitor {
> > struct {
> > int width;
> > int height
> > } virtual;
> > };
> >
> > ... the members width and height aren't required any more, as
> > they're
> > actually computable generically, and don't belong in that
> > struct.
> > Instead, I have separate functions which can provide those
> > values.
> >
> > So where I have in code, statements such as:
> >
> > struct monitor *m = this_monitor();
> > int foo = m->virutal.width;
> >
> > I want to be able to substitute "m->virtual.width" with a
> > function
> > call "get_width()" -- which does not involve "struct monitor" at
> > all.
> > Indeed, the semantic patch I'm trying to apply now looks like
> > this:
> >
> > @@
> > struct monitor *m;
> > @@
> >
> > - m->virtual.width;
> > + get_width();
> >
> > ... and although spatch doesn't tell me of any errors, when I
> > run it
> > over my codebase, no modifications are made. So clearly I'm
> > still
> > doing something wrong.
> >
> >
> > Remove the semi-colons. ;)
>
> Good catch :)
>
> julia
_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
