[Cocci] [cocci] Ask for help

[Cocci] [cocci] Ask for help

[Junghak Sung]

Hi~

I'm a newbie for coccinelle.
I would like to make a cocci file to patch like :

struct type_b *foo(void);

int some_function(...)
{
-struct type_a *v1, *v2;
+struct type_b *v1, *v2;
...
v1 = foo();
v2 = foo();
...
}

Return value of foo() was changed from struct type_a to struct type_b.
So, I want to find out the locations where a function use it in and 
modify the type of local variables.

If the number of local variable is just one, this cocci could make the 
patch well.

@@
identifier i;
@@
{
...
-struct type_a *i;
+struct type_b *i;
...
i = foo();
...
}

But, assuming that the number of local variables is two or more, I have 
failed again and again.
How can I make cocci file?
Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Best regards,
Junghak

[Cocci] [cocci] Ask for help

[Julia Lawall]

On Tue, 7 Jul 2015, Junghak Sung wrote:

> Hi~
>
> I'm a newbie for coccinelle.
> I would like to make a cocci file to patch like :
>
> struct type_b *foo(void);
>
> int some_function(...)
> {
> -struct type_a *v1, *v2;
> +struct type_b *v1, *v2;
> ...
> v1 = foo();
> v2 = foo();
> ...
> }
>
> Return value of foo() was changed from struct type_a to struct type_b.
> So, I want to find out the locations where a function use it in and modify the
> type of local variables.
>
> If the number of local variable is just one, this cocci could make the patch
> well.
>
> @@
> identifier i;
> @@
> {
> ...
> -struct type_a *i;
> +struct type_b *i;
> ...
> i = foo();
> ...
> }
>
> But, assuming that the number of local variables is two or more, I have failed
> again and again.
> How can I make cocci file?
> Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Could you try the following?

Coccinelle only allows specifying transformations on variable declarations
one at a time.  But if all declarations are treated in the same way, this
may be OK.  On the other hand, if there is a mixture of pointers and
nonpointers, this will fail.  Such cases are not supported.

@@
type T1;
identifier i,i1;
@@

 struct
- type_a             // only change the type name
+ type_b
 *i;
<... when exists     // there may not be an i =... on every control flow path
T1 i1;               // allow other type_a declarations
...>
i = foo();

julia

[Cocci] [cocci] Ask for help

[Junghak Sung]

First of all, Thank you for your quick response.
But, I'm still in trouble, because your cocci file also doesn't work 
with this error.

Fatal error: exception Failure("xxx.c: 112: More than one variable in the declaration, and so it cannot be transformed.  Check that there is no transformation on the type or the ;")


Moreover, in many case of my real code, the second variable is treated 
with different way.

struct type_b *foo(void);
struct type_b *foo2(void);

int some_function(...)
{
-struct type_a *v1, *v2;
+struct type_b *v1, *v2;
...
v1 = foo();
v2 = foo2();
...
}


Does NOT coccinelle support this case?
If not, I'd be better to find out other way or do it manually.

Thank you & regards,
Junghak


On 07/07/2015 05:49 PM, Julia Lawall wrote:
>
> On Tue, 7 Jul 2015, Junghak Sung wrote:
>
>> Hi~
>>
>> I'm a newbie for coccinelle.
>> I would like to make a cocci file to patch like :
>>
>> struct type_b *foo(void);
>>
>> int some_function(...)
>> {
>> -struct type_a *v1, *v2;
>> +struct type_b *v1, *v2;
>> ...
>> v1 = foo();
>> v2 = foo();
>> ...
>> }
>>
>> Return value of foo() was changed from struct type_a to struct type_b.
>> So, I want to find out the locations where a function use it in and modify the
>> type of local variables.
>>
>> If the number of local variable is just one, this cocci could make the patch
>> well.
>>
>> @@
>> identifier i;
>> @@
>> {
>> ...
>> -struct type_a *i;
>> +struct type_b *i;
>> ...
>> i = foo();
>> ...
>> }
>>
>> But, assuming that the number of local variables is two or more, I have failed
>> again and again.
>> How can I make cocci file?
>> Thank you in advance for your consideration.
> Could you try the following?
>
> Coccinelle only allows specifying transformations on variable declarations
> one at a time.  But if all declarations are treated in the same way, this
> may be OK.  On the other hand, if there is a mixture of pointers and
> nonpointers, this will fail.  Such cases are not supported.
>
> @@
> type T1;
> identifier i,i1;
> @@
>
>   struct
> - type_a             // only change the type name
> + type_b
>   *i;
> <... when exists     // there may not be an i =... on every control flow path
> T1 i1;               // allow other type_a declarations
> ...>
> i = foo();
>
> julia
>

[Cocci] [cocci] Ask for help

[Peter Senna Tschudin]

Hi,

Which version of Coccinelle are you using? If it is not a problem for you,
download, compile and install the latest version from
http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/

Peter

On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Junghak Sung <jh1009.sung@samsung.com>
wrote:

>
> First of all, Thank you for your quick response.
> But, I'm still in trouble, because your cocci file also doesn't work with
> this error.
>
> Fatal error: exception Failure("xxx.c: 112: More than one variable in the
> declaration, and so it cannot be transformed.  Check that there is no
> transformation on the type or the ;")
>
>
> Moreover, in many case of my real code, the second variable is treated
> with different way.
>
> struct type_b *foo(void);
> struct type_b *foo2(void);
>
> int some_function(...)
> {
> -struct type_a *v1, *v2;
> +struct type_b *v1, *v2;
> ...
> v1 = foo();
> v2 = foo2();
> ...
> }
>
>
> Does NOT coccinelle support this case?
> If not, I'd be better to find out other way or do it manually.
>
> Thank you & regards,
> Junghak
>
>
>
> On 07/07/2015 05:49 PM, Julia Lawall wrote:
>
>>
>> On Tue, 7 Jul 2015, Junghak Sung wrote:
>>
>>  Hi~
>>>
>>> I'm a newbie for coccinelle.
>>> I would like to make a cocci file to patch like :
>>>
>>> struct type_b *foo(void);
>>>
>>> int some_function(...)
>>> {
>>> -struct type_a *v1, *v2;
>>> +struct type_b *v1, *v2;
>>> ...
>>> v1 = foo();
>>> v2 = foo();
>>> ...
>>> }
>>>
>>> Return value of foo() was changed from struct type_a to struct type_b.
>>> So, I want to find out the locations where a function use it in and
>>> modify the
>>> type of local variables.
>>>
>>> If the number of local variable is just one, this cocci could make the
>>> patch
>>> well.
>>>
>>> @@
>>> identifier i;
>>> @@
>>> {
>>> ...
>>> -struct type_a *i;
>>> +struct type_b *i;
>>> ...
>>> i = foo();
>>> ...
>>> }
>>>
>>> But, assuming that the number of local variables is two or more, I have
>>> failed
>>> again and again.
>>> How can I make cocci file?
>>> Thank you in advance for your consideration.
>>>
>> Could you try the following?
>>
>> Coccinelle only allows specifying transformations on variable declarations
>> one at a time.  But if all declarations are treated in the same way, this
>> may be OK.  On the other hand, if there is a mixture of pointers and
>> nonpointers, this will fail.  Such cases are not supported.
>>
>> @@
>> type T1;
>> identifier i,i1;
>> @@
>>
>>   struct
>> - type_a             // only change the type name
>> + type_b
>>   *i;
>> <... when exists     // there may not be an i =... on every control flow
>> path
>> T1 i1;               // allow other type_a declarations
>> ...>
>> i = foo();
>>
>> julia
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Cocci mailing list
> Cocci at systeme.lip6.fr
> https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
>



-- 
Peter
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://systeme.lip6.fr/pipermail/cocci/attachments/20150707/92fbba86/attachment.html>

[Cocci] [cocci] Ask for help

[Julia Lawall]

On Tue, 7 Jul 2015, Junghak Sung wrote:

>
> First of all, Thank you for your quick response.
> But, I'm still in trouble, because your cocci file also doesn't work with this
> error.
>
> Fatal error: exception Failure("xxx.c: 112: More than one variable in the
> declaration, and so it cannot be transformed.  Check that there is no
> transformation on the type or the ;")

I think Peter took care of this.  Please check that you have the latest
version.

> Moreover, in many case of my real code, the second variable is treated with
> different way.

What do you mean exactly by "different way"?  It may indeed turn out that
the current state of Coccinelle can't help you here.  But still try with
the latest version.

julia

>
> struct type_b *foo(void);
> struct type_b *foo2(void);
>
> int some_function(...)
> {
> -struct type_a *v1, *v2;
> +struct type_b *v1, *v2;
> ...
> v1 = foo();
> v2 = foo2();
> ...
> }
>
>
> Does NOT coccinelle support this case?
> If not, I'd be better to find out other way or do it manually.
>
> Thank you & regards,
> Junghak
>
>
> On 07/07/2015 05:49 PM, Julia Lawall wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 7 Jul 2015, Junghak Sung wrote:
> >
> > > Hi~
> > >
> > > I'm a newbie for coccinelle.
> > > I would like to make a cocci file to patch like :
> > >
> > > struct type_b *foo(void);
> > >
> > > int some_function(...)
> > > {
> > > -struct type_a *v1, *v2;
> > > +struct type_b *v1, *v2;
> > > ...
> > > v1 = foo();
> > > v2 = foo();
> > > ...
> > > }
> > >
> > > Return value of foo() was changed from struct type_a to struct type_b.
> > > So, I want to find out the locations where a function use it in and modify
> > > the
> > > type of local variables.
> > >
> > > If the number of local variable is just one, this cocci could make the
> > > patch
> > > well.
> > >
> > > @@
> > > identifier i;
> > > @@
> > > {
> > > ...
> > > -struct type_a *i;
> > > +struct type_b *i;
> > > ...
> > > i = foo();
> > > ...
> > > }
> > >
> > > But, assuming that the number of local variables is two or more, I have
> > > failed
> > > again and again.
> > > How can I make cocci file?
> > > Thank you in advance for your consideration.
> > Could you try the following?
> >
> > Coccinelle only allows specifying transformations on variable declarations
> > one at a time.  But if all declarations are treated in the same way, this
> > may be OK.  On the other hand, if there is a mixture of pointers and
> > nonpointers, this will fail.  Such cases are not supported.
> >
> > @@
> > type T1;
> > identifier i,i1;
> > @@
> >
> >   struct
> > - type_a             // only change the type name
> > + type_b
> >   *i;
> > <... when exists     // there may not be an i =... on every control flow
> > path
> > T1 i1;               // allow other type_a declarations
> > ...>
> > i = foo();
> >
> > julia
> >
>
>

[Cocci] [cocci] Ask for help

[Junghak Sung]

On 07/07/2015 08:51 PM, Julia Lawall wrote:
>
> On Tue, 7 Jul 2015, Junghak Sung wrote:
>
>> First of all, Thank you for your quick response.
>> But, I'm still in trouble, because your cocci file also doesn't work with this
>> error.
>>
>> Fatal error: exception Failure("xxx.c: 112: More than one variable in the
>> declaration, and so it cannot be transformed.  Check that there is no
>> transformation on the type or the ;")
> I think Peter took care of this.  Please check that you have the latest
> version.

As Peter's comment, I installed the latest version and tried again.
But, got a same result with this message.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

let's go

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

rule starting on line 3 =

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

dependencies for rule rule starting on line 3 satisfied:

binding in = []

binding relevant in = []

      (ONCE) ./t.c: 28: More than one variable in the declaration, and so it cannot be transformed.  Check that there is no transformation on the type or the ;

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Finished

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Check duplication for 1 files


% spatch --version

spatch version 1.0.1 without Python support and with Str regexp support

>
>> Moreover, in many case of my real code, the second variable is treated with
>> different way.
> What do you mean exactly by "different way"?  It may indeed turn out that
> the current state of Coccinelle can't help you here.  But still try with
> the latest version.
"different way" means that the first variable is used by foo(), but the 
second is for other function foo2().
It's unfortunate that Coccinelle can not support this case.
I think Coccinelle would be very flexible and powerful tool,
and I hope that upcoming version can treat this case.

Thanks & Regards,
Junghak
>
> julia
>
>> struct type_b *foo(void);
>> struct type_b *foo2(void);
>>
>> int some_function(...)
>> {
>> -struct type_a *v1, *v2;
>> +struct type_b *v1, *v2;
>> ...
>> v1 = foo();
>> v2 = foo2();
>> ...
>> }
>>
>>
>> Does NOT coccinelle support this case?
>> If not, I'd be better to find out other way or do it manually.
>>
>> Thank you & regards,
>> Junghak
>>
>>
>> On 07/07/2015 05:49 PM, Julia Lawall wrote:
>>> On Tue, 7 Jul 2015, Junghak Sung wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi~
>>>>
>>>> I'm a newbie for coccinelle.
>>>> I would like to make a cocci file to patch like :
>>>>
>>>> struct type_b *foo(void);
>>>>
>>>> int some_function(...)
>>>> {
>>>> -struct type_a *v1, *v2;
>>>> +struct type_b *v1, *v2;
>>>> ...
>>>> v1 = foo();
>>>> v2 = foo();
>>>> ...
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> Return value of foo() was changed from struct type_a to struct type_b.
>>>> So, I want to find out the locations where a function use it in and modify
>>>> the
>>>> type of local variables.
>>>>
>>>> If the number of local variable is just one, this cocci could make the
>>>> patch
>>>> well.
>>>>
>>>> @@
>>>> identifier i;
>>>> @@
>>>> {
>>>> ...
>>>> -struct type_a *i;
>>>> +struct type_b *i;
>>>> ...
>>>> i = foo();
>>>> ...
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> But, assuming that the number of local variables is two or more, I have
>>>> failed
>>>> again and again.
>>>> How can I make cocci file?
>>>> Thank you in advance for your consideration.
>>> Could you try the following?
>>>
>>> Coccinelle only allows specifying transformations on variable declarations
>>> one at a time.  But if all declarations are treated in the same way, this
>>> may be OK.  On the other hand, if there is a mixture of pointers and
>>> nonpointers, this will fail.  Such cases are not supported.
>>>
>>> @@
>>> type T1;
>>> identifier i,i1;
>>> @@
>>>
>>>    struct
>>> - type_a             // only change the type name
>>> + type_b
>>>    *i;
>>> <... when exists     // there may not be an i =... on every control flow
>>> path
>>> T1 i1;               // allow other type_a declarations
>>> ...>
>>> i = foo();
>>>
>>> julia
>>>
>>

[Cocci] [cocci] Ask for help

[Julia Lawall]

It works a little better like this.  But you may end up with an empty
declaration if all variables are changed.

@exists@
type T1;
identifier i,i1;
@@

++ struct type_b *i;
- struct type_a *i;             // only change the type name
<...                 // there may not be an i =... on every control flow
path
T1 i1;               // allow other type_a declarations
...>
i = foo();

julia