On Mon, 2023-01-30 at 09:56 +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 30 Jan 2023, Luca Coelho wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 2023-01-30 at 09:37 +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > > > Sorry, false alarm.  I was running spatch by itself on an inner
> > > > directory (.../i915/display), but when I used find, I was using
> > > > .../i915, so there was one more match happening there.
> > > > 
> > > > So, it seems that the latest head _does_ work fine! And I'm gettign
> > > > all
> > > > the matches and changes that I expect.  Thanks!
> > > 
> > > Great news :)
> > 
> > Maybe I celebrated a bit too early.  There is still one instance that
> > is not matching...
> 
> Probably it's a parse error.
> 
> Try putting the following in your semantic patch, egin the metavariable
> list of macros_noargs:
> 
> iterator name with_intel_display_power_if_enabled;

I added it to the rule, like this:

@macros_noargs@
iterator name with_intel_display_power_if_enabled;
identifier m;
expression e =~ "dev_priv";
@@
#define m <+...e...+>


> If that is still not sufficient, try running
> 
> spatch --parse-c file.c
> 
> for the file of interest and see if it says BAD or bad on the lines of the
> function that you expect should be matched.

There are still lots of BADs and bads.  Output of --parse-c attached.

--
Luca.