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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe backports" in
