On Fri, 23 Oct 2020, Markus Elfring wrote:

> > I'd like to add a statement after another within a preprocessor expression,
> >
> > How do you think about to refer to a “#define directive”?
> >
> >
> > > but spatch adds the line without an escape (backslash).
> >
> > I imagine that we stumble on another target conflict here.
> > https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/issues/139
> >
> > Do you really want to adjust a bit of text according to a preprocessing
> > definition?
> >
> >
> > >     #define X(a) x(a);
> > >
> > > (I know the above is not technically correct but it's super common.)
> >
> > I stumble on understanding difficulties for this information.
> > Would you like to clarify the knowledge about correctness a bit more?
> >
> >
> > >     @@
> > >     expression e;
> > >     @@
> > >         x(e);
> > >     +   y(e);
> >
> > How should the scope be specified that a change should be performed
> > only for preprocessor code (replacement lists for your transformation
> > approach)?

I don't think he is asking that.  He means, if the call to x happens to be
in a macro definition, how can he ensure that the transformed code treats
newlines in the right way.

julia


> >
> >
> > > I can think of two solutions, if an expression is inside a
> > > preprocessor statement: add a backslash before every newline, or skip
> > > the newline.
> >
> > Would you like to choose the preferred coding style for such an use case?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Markus
> > _______________________________________________
> > Cocci mailing list
> > Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
> > https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
> >