On 06/11/2011 10:40 AM, Julia Lawall wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011, Greg Dietsche wrote:
On 06/08/2011 02:10 PM, Nicolas Palix wrote:
I am not familiar with out-of-tree development but I guess that in
that case we should
also add a "-I $KBUILD_EXTMOD/include" ?
I decided to skip doing this in V2 of the patch. I did a very quick test and
cocci didn't seem to like two -I flags on one command line.
What was the problem and what version of coccinelle do you have? To my
recollection, the ability to have multiple -I options was added sometime
not so long ago.
Hmm... my 'quick' test must have been bad. I just tested again with
0.2.3 (debian squeeze) and 1.0.0-rc3 and both seem to work just with
multiple -I options. As I recall, originally, the script just exited
with a code of 1 in my original test...
so the updated line really should read:
OPTIONS="-dir $KBUILD_EXTMOD -patch $srctree -I $srctree/include -I
$KBUILD_EXTMOD/include"
I'll send an updated patch in a day or two. I've got some other stuff to
do today. Also, I noticed another bug that I'll need to fix too. The
lines in my patch that read:
echo 'M= is only supported for Coccinelle >= 0.2.3'
exit 1
are flat out wrong... :(
Greg
julia
The use of -I by Coccinelle depends on the other options (like
-include_headers or -all_includes).
Such options are retrieved from the comments in the cocci files.
So the need for -I depends on the semantic patch you consider. I think
it is thus better
to be "exhaustive" in that case.
Julia, is there any performance problem in doing so ?
Greg
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
