Am 06.03.21 um 18:52 schrieb Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason: > > On Sat, Mar 06 2021, René Scharfe. wrote: > >> Am 06.03.21 um 18:27 schrieb Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason: >>> Do these sorts of rules really benefit that much from the type >>> v.s. expression? If yes we'll obviously need to support it, but if (and >>> I haven't looked closely) we can equally rewrite them with "expression" >>> (or it would be good enough) we could be quite a bit faster by >>> default... >> >> Type information is essential for many (most?) semantic patches. >> Untyped replacements could be done more easily using sed or similar. > > We have 65 individual hunks in *.cocci by my count $((/ (cat *.cocci | > grep -c ^@@) 2)), but only 9 of those use the "type T" construct, which > AFAICT is the only thing affected. I don't understand why using type variables would be the only feature that needs headers. Accessing struct members like in commit.cocci surely needs their definition, no? > There's still plenty of reason to use spatch without headers being > included, it's still doing a full parse and knows that something's a > function, and otherwise cares about C syntax etc. > > Anyway, I'm not saying you don't need it, just that AFAICT it's a small > minority of the rules that require the includes. https://coccinelle.gitlabpages.inria.fr/website/docs/options.pdf says "If the semantic patch contains type speci fications on expression metavariables, then the default is --local-includes. Otherwise the default is --no-includes." So spatch by default already avoids loading includes unless needed, but we override that. René
