On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 10:29:34AM +0300, Alex Susu wrote:
> Should I send you the new grammar with some explanation on your personal
> email?
Please, just send a patch on this mailing-list. In case you are not familiar
with git, doing something like this should be enough:
$ git clone git://gith
Hi, Gabriel,
I am almost done with the changes of the grammar.
My biggest concern so far is that after changing in the grammar in
formatparse.mly 1
rule, I had to erase another rule, which was used instead of my rule at parse
time.
Should I send you the new grammar with some ex
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 08:55:02AM +0300, Alex Susu wrote:
>I am starting now to experience with the grammar in
> formatparse.mly - will let you know of the outcome.
I'm still not sure if it's a good idea or not, but please do send a patch and
we'll discuss it. My main concern is that the nam
On 3/21/2013 10:56 PM, Gabriel Kerneis wrote:
Hi Alex,
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 12:04:26PM +0200, Alex Susu wrote:
As far as I understand, interpreted constructors allow more general patterns
than deconstructors - see end of Section 6.2 for example of big constructor
pattern. On the other hand,
Hi Alex,
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 12:04:26PM +0200, Alex Susu wrote:
> As far as I understand, interpreted constructors allow more general patterns
> than deconstructors - see end of Section 6.2 for example of big constructor
> pattern. On the other hand, I was able only to specify types for
> deco
Hi.
If anybody can help with changing the grammar in formatparse.mly please
read below
(paragraph "However, I want to adapt the grammar in formatparse.mly").
On 2/28/2013 8:55 PM, Gabriel Kerneis wrote:
> Hi Alex,
>
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 12:44:13AM +0200, Alex Susu wrote:
>> More ex
Hi Alex,
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 12:44:13AM +0200, Alex Susu wrote:
> More exactly I used to search in the C code the following deconstructors:
Just to make sure I understand you correctly: you are happy with the current
behaviour, except for the lack of function name support?
> Given the above
Hello.
I want to search within the C code for certain functions that meet a
signature
criteria, etc. For this kind of search it is suitable to use the CIL
interpreted
deconstructors (eventually with placeholders).
More exactly I used to search in the C code the following deconstru
