On Sat, 1 Oct 2016, Joe Perches wrote: > On Sat, 2016-10-01 at 21:46 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > > These patches fix cases where the documentation above a function definition > > is not consistent with the function header. Issues are detected using the > > semantic patch below (http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/). Basically, the semantic > > patch parses a file to find comments, then matches each function header, > > and checks that the name and parameter list in the function header are > > compatible with the comment that preceeds it most closely. > > Hi Julia. > > Would it be possible for a semantic patch to scan for > function definitions where the types do not have > identifiers and update the definitions to match the > declarations? > > For instance, given: > > <some.h> > int foo(int); > > <some.c> > int foo(int bar) > { > return baz; > } > > Could coccinelle output: > > diff a/some.h b/some.h > [] > -int foo(int); > +int foo(int bar); The following seems to work: @r@ identifier f; position p; type T, t; parameter list[n] ps; @@ T f@p(ps,t,...); @s@ identifier r.f,x; type r.T, r.t; parameter list[r.n] ps; @@ T f(ps,t x,...) { ... } @@ identifier r.f, s.x; position r.p; type r.T, r.t; parameter list[r.n] ps; @@ T f@p(ps,t + x ,...); After letting it run for a few minutes without making any effort to include .h files, I get over 2700 changed lines. julia -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
