From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: julia.lawall@lip6.fr (Julia Lawall) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 16:16:42 +0100 (CET) Subject: [Cocci] Parse error with genl-const.cocci In-Reply-To: References: <925f98d2-047f-785f-4162-21b53a77cd62@gmail.com> <1512116859.25588.4.camel@sipsolutions.net> <1512120542.25588.7.camel@sipsolutions.net> Message-ID: To: cocci@systeme.lip6.fr List-Id: cocci@systeme.lip6.fr On Tue, 12 Dec 2017, Remington Furman wrote: > On 12/01/2017 02:00 AM, Julia Lawall wrote: > > On Fri, 1 Dec 2017, Johannes Berg wrote: > > > Hi Julia, > > > > > > On Fri, 2017-12-01 at 10:18 +0100, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > > The handling of attributes has also been extended so that you can > > > > actually > > > > match against them in some cases, such as on function declarations. On > > > > the oher hand, nothing was done to allow attributes in front of types > > > > that > > > > are alone. > > > Very cool! > > > > I can try to fix this. In the short term, perhaps using 1.0.4 is > > > > acceptable. > > > To me that's OK, I'll try to keep it in mind. > > > > > > Can we do some "#ifdef" type syntax in spatch on the version of it? :-) > > There's nothing for that available at the moment. > > > I guess I could also have two different versions of the patch and write > > > some code to pick up which one to use, but that's a bit awkward ... > > > > > > But let me know if you can't actually fix this (easily), then I can do > > > that instead. > > OK, I'll try to look at it soon. > > > > julia > I thought I'd point out the layers of coevolution that result from the > changing spatch behavior.? :) It's a bit fractal when every layer in the > dependency graph has the possibility to change.? I suppose a #ifdef type > solution might remove the potential need to backport the .cocci patches > themselves going forward. > > But, I think it might be sufficient to just document what version of the > tools, in this case spatch, were used for a particular backports > commit/release.? It's easy enough to build any version of spatch from git.? Or > perhaps each .cocci patch could have a comment listing the spatch version it > was developed with.? Future backports releases could then update the patch > syntax as needed, document the spatch version, and leave it at that. Hello, I updated the github version of Coccinelle such that patches/0027-genl-const/genl-const.cocci will almost parse correctly. The only thing that remains is to change attribute into attribute name. julia