Re: [PATCH 1/2] coccicheck: add M= option to control which dir is processed

[Greg Dietsche <gregory.dietsche@cuw.edu>]

On 06/11/2011 10:40 AM, Julia Lawall wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jun 2011, Greg Dietsche wrote:
>
>    
>> On 06/08/2011 02:10 PM, Nicolas Palix wrote:
>>      
>>> I am not familiar with out-of-tree development but I guess that in
>>> that case we should
>>> also add a "-I $KBUILD_EXTMOD/include" ?
>>>
>>>
>>>        
>> I decided to skip doing this in V2 of the patch. I did a very quick test and
>> cocci didn't seem to like two -I flags on one command line.
>>      
> What was the problem and what version of coccinelle do you have?  To my
> recollection, the ability to have multiple -I options was added sometime
> not so long ago.
>
>    
Hmm... my 'quick' test must have been bad. I just tested again with 
0.2.3 (debian squeeze) and 1.0.0-rc3 and both seem to work just with 
multiple -I options. As I recall, originally, the script just exited 
with a code of 1 in my original test...

so the updated line really should read:
OPTIONS="-dir $KBUILD_EXTMOD -patch $srctree -I $srctree/include -I 
$KBUILD_EXTMOD/include"

I'll send an updated patch in a day or two. I've got some other stuff to 
do today. Also, I noticed another bug that I'll need to fix too. The 
lines in my patch that read:
             echo 'M= is only supported for Coccinelle >= 0.2.3'
             exit 1
are flat out wrong... :(

Greg

> julia
>
>    
>>> The use of -I by Coccinelle depends on the other options (like
>>> -include_headers or -all_includes).
>>> Such options are retrieved from the comments in the cocci files.
>>> So the need for -I depends on the semantic patch you consider. I think
>>> it is thus better
>>> to be "exhaustive" in that case.
>>>
>>> Julia, is there any performance problem in doing so ?
>>>
>>>        
>> Greg
>>