On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 11:02:49PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2016, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > That is sanitized as follows:
> >
> > # spatch only allows include directories with the syntax "-I include"
> >
> > # while gcc also allows "-Iinclude" and "-include include"
> >
> > COCCIINCLUDE=${LINUXINCLUDE//-I/-I }
> >
> > COCCIINCLUDE=${COCCIINCLUDE// -include/ --include}
>
> I don't get the second case. Is it to replace -include by --include?
> Coccinelle actually supports both, although it doesn't advertise that.
Oh neat, yeah. So a follow up patch later can be to remove that second line?
If so as of what version of coccinelle?
> Also, in LINUXINCLUDE, what is the meaning of -include? For Coccinelle,
> it is not the same as -I. It is for files that should be included that
> are not in the set of includes seen by whatever is the specified include
> strategy (--all-includes, etc). The argument is a specific file name, not
> a directory. It is a way of eg not bothering with --recursive-includes
> when there is one or a few key header files that each file will need.
Its used to force to include a single file, it is a file.
> > So the point is to annotate that the .cocconfig is picked up first due
> > to the fact make is used and its issued from the top level makefile
> > and starts from the top level. The fact that --dir is used is important
> > but secondary to its introduction as well.
>
> OK, the original text seemed to me to imply that running from the kernel
> directory was essential to getting the kernels .cocciconfig,
And what I meant to imply was that since coccicheck uses the kernel
makefiles it would kick off from kernel proper.
> so I wanted to point out that this is not the case.
I should have elaborated with all these details, its perhaps best to be
explicit about this so I can respin with a clearer commit log.
Luis
