From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: jglisse@redhat.com (Jerome Glisse)
Date: Fri, 4 May 2018 15:30:10 -0400
Subject: [Cocci] Multiple match versus single header result in conflicts
Message-ID: <20180504193010.GA25201@redhat.com>
To: cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
List-Id: cocci@systeme.lip6.fr

Following semantics does not update function prototype in header file:

@S@
identifier I1, I2;
@@
struct myop I1 = { ..., .add = I2 , ... };

@U depends on S@
identifier S.I2;
identifier A1, A2;
type T1, T2;
@@
int I2(T1 A1,
+int c,
T2 A2) { ... }

run with spatch --in-place --sp-file test.spatch --dir . --all-includes
(tested various includes/headers combinations) on 3 files f1.h f1.c
f2.c (if f1.c and f2.c are merge together then thing works).

f1.h: ----------------------------------------------------------------
struct myop {
    int (*add)(int, int);
};

int myadd(int, int);
----------------------------------------------------------------------

f1.c: ----------------------------------------------------------------
#include "f1.h"

int myadd(int a, int b)
{
    return a + b;
}

struct myop myop = {
    .add = myadd,
};
----------------------------------------------------------------------

f2.c: ----------------------------------------------------------------
#include "f1.h"

int myadd2(int a, int b)
{
    return a + b;
}

struct myop myop2 = {
    .add = myadd2,
};
----------------------------------------------------------------------

If f1.c and f2.c are just one file than the header files is properly
updated. The error message is:

different modification result for ./f1.h

I am not sure if there is a way to make the semantic patch work against
such scenario. So is this expected ? Is my semantic patch wrong ? Or
is it a bug in coccinelle ?

Thank you,
J?r?me