Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 21 Jun 2016 23:34:21 +0200 | From | "Luis R. Rodriguez" <> | Subject | Re: [Cocci] [PATCH v3 0/8] coccicheck: modernize |
| |
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 11:30:03PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > On Tue, 21 Jun 2016, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 11:02:49PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > On Tue, 21 Jun 2016, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > > That is sanitized as follows: > > > > > > > > # spatch only allows include directories with the syntax "-I include" > > > > # while gcc also allows "-Iinclude" and "-include include" > > > > COCCIINCLUDE=${LINUXINCLUDE//-I/-I } > > > > COCCIINCLUDE=${COCCIINCLUDE// -include/ --include} > > > > > > I don't get the second case. Is it to replace -include by --include? > > > Coccinelle actually supports both, although it doesn't advertise that. > > > > Oh neat, yeah. So a follow up patch later can be to remove that second line? > > If so as of what version of coccinelle? > > Forever. Single - has always been supported. Double - was added at some > point.
OK so indeed the second line above is indeed not needed for sure. After this series settles we can nuke that line.
> > > Also, in LINUXINCLUDE, what is the meaning of -include? For Coccinelle, > > > it is not the same as -I. It is for files that should be included that > > > are not in the set of includes seen by whatever is the specified include > > > strategy (--all-includes, etc). The argument is a specific file name, not > > > a directory. It is a way of eg not bothering with --recursive-includes > > > when there is one or a few key header files that each file will need. > > > > Its used to force to include a single file, it is a file. > > OK, close enough then.
Great thanks.
> > > > So the point is to annotate that the .cocconfig is picked up first due > > > > to the fact make is used and its issued from the top level makefile > > > > and starts from the top level. The fact that --dir is used is important > > > > but secondary to its introduction as well. > > > > > > OK, the original text seemed to me to imply that running from the kernel > > > directory was essential to getting the kernels .cocciconfig, > > > > And what I meant to imply was that since coccicheck uses the kernel > > makefiles it would kick off from kernel proper. > > > > > so I wanted to point out that this is not the case. > > > > I should have elaborated with all these details, its perhaps best to be > > explicit about this so I can respin with a clearer commit log. > > Thanks. People may come across this message, and it could be good for it > to be as helpful as possible.
Indeed.
Luis
| |