Re: [Cocci] [PATCH] --c++ --test will assume .cpp extension, not .c
On Wed, 26 Jun 2019, Michele Martone wrote: > --c++ --test will assume .cpp extension, not .c > > Signed-off-by: Michele Martone Applied, thanks. julia > --- > diff --git a/testing.ml b/testing.ml > index 258e6c6f..784040fe 100644 > --- a/testing.ml > +++ b/testing.ml > @@ -97,7 +97,7 @@ let testone prefix x compare_with_expected = >let x= if x =~ "\\(.*\\)_ver0$" then matched1 x else x in >let base = if x =~ "\\(.*\\)_ver[0-9]+$" then matched1 x else x in > > - let cfile = prefix ^ x ^ ".c" in > + let cfile = if !Flag.c_plus_plus then prefix ^ x ^ ".cpp" else prefix > ^ x ^ ".c" in >let cocci_file = prefix ^ base ^ ".cocci" in > >let expected_out = prefix ^ base ^ out_suffix in > > ___ > Cocci mailing list > Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr > https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci > ___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
[Cocci] [PATCH] --c++ --test will assume .cpp extension, not .c
--c++ --test will assume .cpp extension, not .c Signed-off-by: Michele Martone --- diff --git a/testing.ml b/testing.ml index 258e6c6f..784040fe 100644 --- a/testing.ml +++ b/testing.ml @@ -97,7 +97,7 @@ let testone prefix x compare_with_expected = let x= if x =~ "\\(.*\\)_ver0$" then matched1 x else x in let base = if x =~ "\\(.*\\)_ver[0-9]+$" then matched1 x else x in - let cfile = prefix ^ x ^ ".c" in + let cfile = if !Flag.c_plus_plus then prefix ^ x ^ ".cpp" else prefix ^ x ^ ".c" in let cocci_file = prefix ^ base ^ ".cocci" in let expected_out = prefix ^ base ^ out_suffix in ___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
Re: [Cocci] More precise distinction of types for source code searches?
> @@ > expression x; > constant c1,c2; > @@ > > x = c1; > ( > x = c1; > | > *x = c2; > ) Thanks for your suggestion of the possible usage of a SmPL disjunction. * Does it indicate a search attempt to match the first assignment statement twice (for the implementation of exclusion of duplicate source code)? * How many implementation details will become relevant for the corresponding documentation of the Coccinelle software? Regards, Markus ___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
Re: [Cocci] More precise distinction of types for source code searches?
On Tue, 25 Jun 2019, Markus Elfring wrote: > > The expected difference can trigger the need to express this detail > > by the usage of two identifiers based on the same metavariable type. > > I guess that this wording should be clarified a bit more according to > the current software development status around the semantic patch language. > A selection of different metavariable types is supported already. > https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/blob/c6d7554edf7c4654aeae4d33c3f040e300682f23/docs/manual/cocci_syntax.tex#L199 > > So it seems to be occasionally appropriate to use metavariables with > the same type while different names are chosen then for the corresponding > variable declaration. > > > Another SmPL script example: > @test@ > constant c1, c2; > @@ > x = > *c1 > ; > x = > *c2 > ; @@ expression x; constant c1,c2; @@ x = c1; ( x = c1; | *x = c2; ) julia ___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
Re: [Cocci] More precise distinction of types for source code searches?
> The expected difference can trigger the need to express this detail > by the usage of two identifiers based on the same metavariable type. I guess that this wording should be clarified a bit more according to the current software development status around the semantic patch language. A selection of different metavariable types is supported already. https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/blob/c6d7554edf7c4654aeae4d33c3f040e300682f23/docs/manual/cocci_syntax.tex#L199 So it seems to be occasionally appropriate to use metavariables with the same type while different names are chosen then for the corresponding variable declaration. Another SmPL script example: @test@ constant c1, c2; @@ x = *c1 ; x = *c2 ; Such a source code search specification is too generic so far when you would really like to determine if these assignments (or its elements) are equivalent or even identical (or not). I am looking again for possibilities to improve language distinctions here. * How can a single metavariable remember a mapping to a previous instance from its type? * How will it become possible to match only a subset of a known base type? * How often do you want to exclude something because of a previous match with a similar type? Regards, Markus ___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
