Re: [Cocci] [PATCH v3 0/8] coccicheck: modernize

[Luis R. Rodriguez]

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