Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 21 Jun 2016 23:21:13 +0200 | From | "Luis R. Rodriguez" <> | Subject | Re: [Cocci] [PATCH v3 0/8] coccicheck: modernize |
| |
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?
> 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.
> > 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.
Luis
| |