Hello Julia,
On 03/27/2013 06:31 PM, Julia Lawall wrote:
> Could you try the attached patch? The line numbers are almost certain not
> to work out, but maybe it will be able to figure out what to do.
sorry for the late reply. The patch works like a charm.
Thanks!
bye
michael
>
> The id
On Mon, 8 Apr 2013, Michael Stefaniuc wrote:
> Hello Julia,
>
> On 03/27/2013 06:31 PM, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > Could you try the attached patch? The line numbers are almost certain not
> > to work out, but maybe it will be able to figure out what to do.
> sorry for the late reply. The patch work
On 2.3.2013 22:36, Nicolas Palix wrote:
> A recent patch have introduce the VERBOSE variable and comments
> now depend on it. However, the message printed for each cocci file
> such not be printed when the ONLINE mode is active, whatever is
> the value of VERBOSE.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Palix
If this may help, I stumbled against the same error in a different
setting, but I think the ultimate cause is the same:
$ cat in.c
int foo()
{
register rI;
return rI;
}
$ cat in.cocci
@f1@
identifier f;
position p;
type T;
@@
* T@p f;
The reported error is the same: << Fatal error: exception
Thanks very much for the report. I thought that my fix had solved the
problem, but it doesn't seem to have been a complete solution, because I
still see the problem on this example.
I will look into it.
julia
On Mon, 8 Apr 2013, Nic Volanschi (R&D) wrote:
> If this may help, I stumbled against
Actually, what result would you prefer? In the previous fix that I made,
I just caused the missing type, which was hidden under a macro, to make
the match fail. In this case, though perhaps you would prefer T to be
bound to int? That might cause some problemes, though, because it is not
a real "
I guess that failing the match is OK. So taking the position of a type
could be a way of imposing an explicit type, isn't it.
Nic.
On Mon, 2013-04-08 at 16:56 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> Actually, what result would you prefer? In the previous fix that I made,
> I just caused the missing type,
> In the previous fix that I made, I just caused the missing type,
> which was hidden under a macro, to make the match fail.
How do you think about to make this detail configurable?
> In this case, though perhaps you would prefer T to be bound to int?
Does the C programming language specify tha
On Mon, 8 Apr 2013, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > In the previous fix that I made, I just caused the missing type,
> > which was hidden under a macro, to make the match fail.
>
> How do you think about to make this detail configurable?
On this case, there is nothing to configure. If there is no k
