[Cocci] update

[Cocci] update

[Julia Lawall]

There was a bug in the include file management that could cause
--recursive-includes to go into an infinite loop.  That is now fixed.

There is also now support for conjunctions on types.  That is:

@@
type t;
identifier i;
@@

(
struct i
&
t
)

will now bind both i and t appropriately.

julia

[Cocci] Addition of support for conjunctions on types

[SF Markus Elfring]

> @@
> type t;
> identifier i;
> @@
>
> (
> struct i
> &
> t
> )
>
> will now bind both i and t appropriately.


I would like to know a bit more for the application of such a metavariable combination.
I hoped also to read something about it in the current manual.
Unfortunately, I get the information ?? Fatal error occurred, no output PDF
file produced! ?? from data processing by the command ?make docs?.

Regards,
Markus

[Cocci] Addition of support for conjunctions on types

[SF Markus Elfring]

>> I would like to know a bit more for the application of such a metavariable combination.

I would appreciate another feedback for this aspect.


>> Unfortunately, I get the information ?? Fatal error occurred, no output PDF
>> file produced! ?? from data processing by the command ?make docs?.
> 
> Fixed.  Thanks for the report.

Thanks for your quick software update ?latex fix?.

Regards,
Markus

[Cocci] Addition of support for conjunctions on types

[SF Markus Elfring]

> I have no idea what information is wanted.

I am looking for descriptions about circumstances under which the metavariable combination
will be useful by the mentioned SmPL conjunctions.

Regards,
Markus

[Cocci] Addition of support for conjunctions on types

[Julia Lawall]

On Mon, 28 Aug 2017, SF Markus Elfring wrote:

> > I have no idea what information is wanted.
>
> I am looking for descriptions about circumstances under which the metavariable combination
> will be useful by the mentioned SmPL conjunctions.

I still don't understand the question.  Another example is

(
(
struct i
|
union i
)
&
t
)

Now you have one metavariable, t, that stores the whole type, whether it
is a struct or a union.

julia

[Cocci] Addition of support for conjunctions on types

[SF Markus Elfring]

>> I am looking for descriptions about circumstances under which the metavariable combination
>> will be useful by the mentioned SmPL conjunctions.
> 
> I still don't understand the question.

It seems that I have got a few understanding difficulties with the added functionality.


> Another example is
> 
> (
> (
> struct i
> |
> union i
> )
> &
> t
> )
> 
> Now you have one metavariable, t, that stores the whole type,

I find this technical detail unclear.


> whether it is a struct or a union.

But this information sounds promising.

Regards,
Markus