[Cocci] Parse error with genl-const.cocci

Remington Furman remicles2 at gmail.com
Tue Dec 12 16:19:51 CET 2017


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.

-Remington


More information about the Cocci mailing list