> The below spatch works for me - and finds the cases I was looking
> for in report mode.
This is nice.
> In patch mode it fixes some in a bad way though due to some additional "bugs"
> in the if statement like:
…
> - if ((notify->event = event), event->refs) {
> + (notify->event = event);
> + if (event->refs) {
I am curious on how software development considerations will evolve further
for such generated patches.
Will the shown script for the semantic patch language need any more fine-tuning?
Would the following transformation variant result in desirable differences
(after the specification of extra parentheses)?
@badif@
position P;
statement S;
expression E1,E2;
@@
if@P ((E1),E2) S
…
@fixbadif depends on patch && badif@
position badif.P;
statement S;
expression badif.E1,badif.E2;
@@
+E1;
if@P (
- (E1),
E2)
S
> - if (mask = 0, data = 0, ram->diff.rammap_11_0a_03fe) {
> + mask = 0, data = 0;
> + if (ram->diff.rammap_11_0a_03fe) {
>
> In futher cases it is not clear if the unconditional part really was
> intended to take effect outside the conditional code so it is not
> clear if the placement before the if () is technically correct
How do you think about to convert such a development concern into a more
advanced source code search pattern?
Regards,
Markus
_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
[email protected]
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
