From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: elfring@users.sourceforge.net (SF Markus Elfring)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2014 12:55:57 +0100
Subject: [Cocci] Change function invocations argument
In-Reply-To: <2BD158D5-96AC-4BEC-81B9-F07A54C7BEEB@gmail.com>
References: <F51E5D4A-BD27-4192-95B7-2164D25A4380@gmail.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.02.1412202131540.2098@localhost6.localdomain6>
 <254A1CAA-2FA6-4546-91BD-5E0C449C7F94@gmail.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.02.1412202147460.2098@localhost6.localdomain6>
 <D2F6C23B-F5FF-41DE-86B3-8C7210DA61BD@gmail.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.02.1412211157000.2068@localhost6.localdomain6>
 <2BD158D5-96AC-4BEC-81B9-F07A54C7BEEB@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5496B54D.8050501@users.sourceforge.net>
To: cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
List-Id: cocci@systeme.lip6.fr

> @@ typedef long_u, uintmax_t; expression e1, e2, e3; @@
> 
>     put_bytes(
>         e1,
> (
> -       (long_u)(e2)
> |
> -       (long_u)e2
> )
> +       (uintmax_t)e2
>         ,
> (
> -       (int)(e3)
> +       (unsigned int)e3
> |
> -       (int)e3
> +       (unsigned int)e3
> |
>         e3
> )
>     )

Can it be that you need to fiddle with SmPL disjunctions a bit less here
because the metavariable type (or an isomorphism) will take care for
additional parentheses around the affected expressions?

How do you think about the applicability of the following approach?

@parameter_cast_replacement@
expression e1, e2, e3;
typedef long_u, uintmax_t;
@@
 put_bytes(e1,
-          (long_u)
+          (uintmax_t)
           e2,
(
-          (int)
+          (unsigned int)
           e3
|
           e3
)
          )

Regards,
Markus