[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.


More information about the Cocci mailing list