From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEF61C43381 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 06:25:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from isis.lip6.fr (isis.lip6.fr [132.227.60.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E6772173C for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 06:25:45 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 3E6772173C Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=lip6.fr Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=cocci-bounces@systeme.lip6.fr Received: from systeme.lip6.fr (systeme.lip6.fr [132.227.104.7]) by isis.lip6.fr (8.15.2/lip6) with ESMTP id x1Q6PRFu024109 ; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 07:25:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from systeme.lip6.fr (systeme.lip6.fr [127.0.0.1]) by systeme.lip6.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEB6A7701; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 07:25:26 +0100 (CET) Received: from isis.lip6.fr (isis.lip6.fr [132.227.60.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by systeme.lip6.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4605876E1 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 07:25:25 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by isis.lip6.fr (8.15.2/lip6) with ESMTP id x1Q6POPC005284 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 07:25:24 +0100 (CET) X-pt: isis.lip6.fr X-Addr-Warning: ATTENTION - Votre correspondant a fourni une adresse d'enveloppe @lip6.fr, mais ce message ne provient pas de lip6.fr ! postmaster@lip6.fr. X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.58,414,1544482800"; d="scan'208";a="297320043" Received: from abo-58-107-68.mrs.modulonet.fr (HELO hadrien) ([85.68.107.58]) by mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 26 Feb 2019 07:25:24 +0100 Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 07:25:23 +0100 (CET) From: Julia Lawall X-X-Sender: jll@hadrien To: Timur Tabi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, Sender e-mail whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (isis.lip6.fr [132.227.60.2]); Tue, 26 Feb 2019 07:25:28 +0100 (CET) X-Greylist: IP, sender and recipient auto-whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (isis.lip6.fr [132.227.60.2]); Tue, 26 Feb 2019 07:25:24 +0100 (CET) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.78 on 132.227.60.2 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.78 on 132.227.60.2 Cc: cocci Subject: Re: [Cocci] Octal constants confuse spatch X-BeenThere: cocci@systeme.lip6.fr X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: cocci-bounces@systeme.lip6.fr Errors-To: cocci-bounces@systeme.lip6.fr On Mon, 25 Feb 2019, Timur Tabi wrote: > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 5:06 PM Timur Tabi wrote: > > Sorry, bad copy-paste. I meant > > > > #define FLD_SET_DRF(a, b, c, d, e) 1 > > Ok, now I found something weird. > > If I put the #define on the top of the source file (test.c), it doesn't work. > > But if I put it in a header file specified by --macro-file-builtins, > it does work. > > So it seems to me that spatch is parsing the macros in the > --macro-file-builtins header file differently than the macros in the > source file itself. That doesn't explain why it doesn't like 0080, > though. It doesn't like 0080 because that's not an octal number. Octal numbers should only have digits up to 7. On the other hand, when I try to parse the function in isolation, it fails for a few parsing rounds, but then succeeds in the end. Coccinelle tries to avoid unfolding macros, because doing so means that the macro code can't be transformed. --macro-file-builtins means use these definitions immediately when parsing. --macro-file definitions are used in a later parsing attempt. I think that macro definitions in the code are only used when they have an impact on control-flow, ie a macro definition that contains a return. So what you see is the intended behavior. julia > > Anyway, I seem to be unblocked for now, but this might be something to > look into. > _______________________________________________ > Cocci mailing list > Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr > https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci > _______________________________________________ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci