> Do you really need to use a regular expression here?
> Why not use a disjunction in the pattern?
Another source code analysis approach like the following might make
the involved software design decisions a bit more clear.
@show_unstored_return_values@
identifier allocation =~ "^(?x)
(?:
pthread_mutex_(?:try|un)?lock
|
sigaction
)$", structure_var, var, work;
field element;
struct structure_type;
type data_type, return_type;
@@
return_type work(...)
{
<+...
(
data_type var = allocation(...);
|
structure_type structure_var = { ... .element = allocation(...) ... };
|
(
var
|
structure_var
)
= allocation(...)
|
* (void) allocation(...);
|
* allocation(...)
)
...+>
}
elfring@Sonne:~/Projekte/Coccinelle/janitor> spatch.opt -sp-file
show_unstored_return_values2.cocci unchecked_return_values1.c
init_defs_builtins: /usr/local/lib/coccinelle/standard.h
181 182
Fatal error: exception Failure("meta: parse error: \n = File
\"show_unstored_return_values2.cocci\", line 9, column 21, charpos = 181\n
around = ';', whole content = struct structure_type;\n")
How can this "surprise" be fixed?
> How is it useful to match just thf function call.
Does the following small source code example contain a few update candidates
for further considerations?
#include <pthread.h>
static pthread_mutex_t my_lock = PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER;
static unsigned long my_counter = 1;
void increment_a_shared_variable(void)
{
pthread_mutex_lock(&my_lock);
++my_counter;
pthread_mutex_unlock(&my_lock);
}
> This doesn't show anything about whether or not the return value is stored.
Does the following SmPL script draft show another interesting application
of the semantic patch language?
@show_unstored_return_values@
identifier allocation =~ "^(?x)
(?:
pthread_mutex_(?:try|un)?lock
|
sigaction
)$", var, work;
type data_type, return_type;
@@
return_type work(...)
{
<+...
(
data_type var = allocation(...);
|
var = allocation(...)
|
* (void) allocation(...);
|
* allocation(...)
)
...+>
}
elfring@Sonne:~/Projekte/Coccinelle/janitor> spatch.opt -sp-file
show_unstored_return_values3.cocci unchecked_return_values1.c
init_defs_builtins: /usr/local/lib/coccinelle/standard.h
HANDLING: unchecked_return_values1.c
diff =
--- unchecked_return_values1.c
+++ /tmp/cocci-output-7564-385170-unchecked_return_values1.c
@@ -5,7 +5,5 @@ static unsigned long my_counter = 1;
void increment_a_shared_variable(void)
{
- pthread_mutex_lock(&my_lock);
++my_counter;
- pthread_mutex_unlock(&my_lock);
}
How do you think about my imaginations for corresponding software improvements?
Regards,
Markus
_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
[email protected]
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
