On Tue, 29 Jan 2013, Michael Stefaniuc wrote: > Hello Julia, > > On 01/28/2013 11:04 PM, Julia Lawall wrote: > > On Sun, 27 Jan 2013, Michael Stefaniuc wrote: > > > >> Hello Peter, > >> > >> On 01/26/2013 02:28 AM, Peter Senna Tschudin wrote: > >>> Thank you for testing. > >>> > >>> I made changes on the semantic patch. I believe it fixed the problem. > >>> Can you test it? > >> while it does fix the issue it makes the cocci script less readable and > >> works only in that particular case. Not sure it is worth the effort as > >> the bad generated patch can be trivially detected and easily fixed > >> manually. My email was more of a bug report / feature request for > >> coccinelle than an improvement request to the script. > >> > >> Though I've noticed an other issue with the script: Any reason you use > >> "Options: --no-includes"? While it does speed up things it misses quite > >> a few cases as a lot of types are defined in the headers. > > > > I think it should be --all-includes or even --recursive-includes > no clue what the policy in the Kernel is but --recursive-includes is > quite heavy handed as a default. I have one --recursive-includes still > running for Wine and it accumulated until now over 1126 CPU minutes > (Intel i5 mobile CPU with 2.4 GHz). It found 5 more cases while > --no-includes found 11 and --local-includes additional 32. The > --local-includes finished in less than 30 minutes (didn't time it exactly).
OK. It depends on how much type information is needed. A compromise could be to make a rule without type information that makes clear that one has less confidence in the result. Then the user could just go look up the type information if needed. -all_includes could be good then. It only includes what is specifically referenced in the current file. julia _______________________________________________ Cocci mailing list [email protected] https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
