Am 12.11.19 um 16:08 schrieb Markus Elfring:
> Hello,
>
> I would like to comment implementation details from
> the commit 177fbab747da4f58cb2a8ce010b3515c86dd67c9 ("coccinelle: use COPY_ARRAY for copying arrays").
>
>
> Do you find the following code variant (for the semantic patch language) also useful?
>
> memcpy(
> ( ptr, E, n *
> - sizeof(*(ptr))
> + sizeof(T)
> | arr, E, n *
> - sizeof(*(arr))
> + sizeof(T)
> | E, ptr, n *
> - sizeof(*(ptr))
> + sizeof(T)
> | E, arr, n *
> - sizeof(*(arr))
> + sizeof(T)
> )
> )
This reduces duplication in the semantic patch, which is nice. I think
I tried something like that at the time, but found that it failed to
produce some of the cases in 921d49be86 ("use COPY_ARRAY for copying
arrays", 2019-06-15) for some reason.
> How do you think about the following SmPL code variant?
>
> -memcpy
> +COPY_ARRAY
> (
> ( dst_ptr
> | dst_arr
> )
> ,
> ( src_ptr
> | src_arr
> )
> ,
> - (n) * sizeof(T)
> + n
> )
This eliminates duplication in the semantic patch, which is good. It
messes up the indentation of n in some of the cases in 921d49be86 ("use
COPY_ARRAY for copying arrays", 2019-06-15), though. Hmm, but that can
be cured by duplicating the comma:
- , (n) * sizeof(T)
+ , n
René
