On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 12:48:39AM +0530, Aditya Srivastava wrote:
> +my $pointer_function = qr{([^\(]*\(\*)\s*\)\s*\(([^\)]*)\)};
Is that a pointer-to-function? Or as people who write C usually call it,
a function pointer? Wouldn't it be better to call it $function_pointer?
> @@ -1210,8 +1211,14 @@ sub dump_struct($$) {
> my $decl_type;
> my $members;
> my $type = qr{struct|union};
> + my $packed = qr{__packed};
> + my $aligned = qr{__aligned};
> + my $cacheline_aligned_in_smp = qr{____cacheline_aligned_in_smp};
> + my $cacheline_aligned = qr{____cacheline_aligned};
I don't think those four definitions actually simplify anything.
> + my $attribute = qr{__attribute__\s*\(\([a-z0-9,_\*\s\(\)]*\)\)}i;
... whereas this one definitely does.
> - $members =~ s/\s*__attribute__\s*\(\([a-z0-9,_\*\s\(\)]*\)\)/ /gi;
> - $members =~ s/\s*__aligned\s*\([^;]*\)/ /gos;
> - $members =~ s/\s*__packed\s*/ /gos;
> + $members =~ s/\s*$attribute/ /gi;
> + $members =~ s/\s*$aligned\s*\([^;]*\)/ /gos;
Maybe put the \s*\([^;]*\) into $aligned? Then it becomes a useful
abstraction.
> - } elsif ($prototype =~ m/^()([a-zA-Z0-9_~:]+)\s*\(([^\(]*)\)/ ||
> - $prototype =~ m/^(\w+)\s+([a-zA-Z0-9_~:]+)\s*\(([^\(]*)\)/ ||
> - $prototype =~ m/^(\w+\s*\*+)\s*([a-zA-Z0-9_~:]+)\s*\(([^\(]*)\)/ ||
> - $prototype =~ m/^(\w+\s+\w+)\s+([a-zA-Z0-9_~:]+)\s*\(([^\(]*)\)/ ||
> - $prototype =~ m/^(\w+\s+\w+\s*\*+)\s*([a-zA-Z0-9_~:]+)\s*\(([^\(]*)\)/ ||
> - $prototype =~ m/^(\w+\s+\w+\s+\w+)\s+([a-zA-Z0-9_~:]+)\s*\(([^\(]*)\)/ ||
> - $prototype =~ m/^(\w+\s+\w+\s+\w+\s*\*+)\s*([a-zA-Z0-9_~:]+)\s*\(([^\(]*)\)/ ||
> - $prototype =~ m/^()([a-zA-Z0-9_~:]+)\s*\(([^\{]*)\)/ ||
> - $prototype =~ m/^(\w+)\s+([a-zA-Z0-9_~:]+)\s*\(([^\{]*)\)/ ||
> - $prototype =~ m/^(\w+\s*\*+)\s*([a-zA-Z0-9_~:]+)\s*\(([^\{]*)\)/ ||
> - $prototype =~ m/^(\w+\s+\w+)\s+([a-zA-Z0-9_~:]+)\s*\(([^\{]*)\)/ ||
> - $prototype =~ m/^(\w+\s+\w+\s*\*+)\s*([a-zA-Z0-9_~:]+)\s*\(([^\{]*)\)/ ||
> - $prototype =~ m/^(\w+\s+\w+\s+\w+)\s+([a-zA-Z0-9_~:]+)\s*\(([^\{]*)\)/ ||
> - $prototype =~ m/^(\w+\s+\w+\s+\w+\s*\*+)\s*([a-zA-Z0-9_~:]+)\s*\(([^\{]*)\)/ ||
> - $prototype =~ m/^(\w+\s+\w+\s+\w+\s+\w+)\s+([a-zA-Z0-9_~:]+)\s*\(([^\{]*)\)/ ||
> - $prototype =~ m/^(\w+\s+\w+\s+\w+\s+\w+\s*\*+)\s*([a-zA-Z0-9_~:]+)\s*\(([^\{]*)\)/ ||
> - $prototype =~ m/^(\w+\s+\w+\s*\*+\s*\w+\s*\*+\s*)\s*([a-zA-Z0-9_~:]+)\s*\(([^\{]*)\)/) {
> + } elsif ($prototype =~ m/^()($name)\s*$prototype_end1/ ||
> + $prototype =~ m/^(\w+)\s+($name)\s*$prototype_end1/ ||
> + $prototype =~ m/^(\w+\s*\*+)\s*($name)\s*$prototype_end1/ ||
> + $prototype =~ m/^(\w+\s+\w+)\s+($name)\s*$prototype_end1/ ||
> + $prototype =~ m/^(\w+\s+\w+\s*\*+)\s*($name)\s*$prototype_end1/ ||
> + $prototype =~ m/^(\w+\s+\w+\s+\w+)\s+($name)\s*$prototype_end1/ ||
> + $prototype =~ m/^(\w+\s+\w+\s+\w+\s*\*+)\s*($name)\s*$prototype_end1/ ||
> + $prototype =~ m/^()($name)\s*$prototype_end2/ ||
> + $prototype =~ m/^(\w+)\s+($name)\s*$prototype_end2/ ||
> + $prototype =~ m/^(\w+\s*\*+)\s*($name)\s*$prototype_end2/ ||
> + $prototype =~ m/^(\w+\s+\w+)\s+($name)\s*$prototype_end2/ ||
> + $prototype =~ m/^(\w+\s+\w+\s*\*+)\s*($name)\s*$prototype_end2/ ||
> + $prototype =~ m/^(\w+\s+\w+\s+\w+)\s+($name)\s*$prototype_end2/ ||
> + $prototype =~ m/^(\w+\s+\w+\s+\w+\s*\*+)\s*($name)\s*$prototype_end2/ ||
> + $prototype =~ m/^(\w+\s+\w+\s+\w+\s+\w+)\s+($name)\s*$prototype_end2/ ||
> + $prototype =~ m/^(\w+\s+\w+\s+\w+\s+\w+\s*\*+)\s*($name)\s*$prototype_end2/ ||
> + $prototype =~ m/^(\w+\s+\w+\s*\*+\s*\w+\s*\*+\s*)\s*($name)\s*$prototype_end2/) {
This is probably the best patch I've seen so far this year.
Now, can we go further? For example:
$prototype_end = $prototype_end1|$prototype_end2
That would let us cut the number of lines here in half.
Can we create a definition for a variable number of \w and \s and '*'
in the return type? In fact, can we define a regex that matches a type?
So this would become:
> + } elsif ($prototype =~ m/^($type)\s*($name)\s*$prototype_end/) {
