On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 at 19:24, Julia Lawall <julia.law...@inria.fr> wrote:
> The ... in Coccinelle is based on control flow, so it is a bit hard to
> find the return at the bottom of the function. Actually, from
> Coccinelle's point of view, all returns are at the bottom of the function,
> because one leaves the function after a return.
Interesting, that helps me understand a little more about Coccinelle. Thanks.
> You can try the following:
>
> @r@
> position p;
> identifier f;
> }
>
> f(...) {
> <...
> { .. return@p; }
> ...>
> }
>
> @@
> position p != r.p;
> @@
>
> - return@p;
So I tried this:
@r@
position p;
identifier f;
@@
f(...) {
<...
{ ... return@p; }
...>
}
@@
position p != r.p;
@@
- return@p;
Which I ran as:
spatch --in-place --debug --iso-file contrib/coccinelle/empty.iso \
--sp-file ./contrib/coccinelle/remove-void-return.cocci --dir fvwm
With "--dir fvwm", I found that my CPU was being chewed at 100%, which I left
running overnight. Some 8 hours later, spatch was still running. Presumably,
Coccinelle is having an interesting time coordinating the positions?
Instead, I decided to loop over the .c files which "--dir fvwm" would have
done. What I found was that for some files, spatch took a few seconds, and
produced no output, yet for some, spatch was still running without any result
known (so I killed it).
Indeed, I'm attaching a debug run of spatch to this email (cocci-debug) for
one file that definitely has functions where I would expect Coccinelle to have
matched a "return;" statement to be removed, but this wasn't the case.
Would you be able to suggest what I might have done wrong, or if there's any
additional debugging I can provide?
Thanks,
Thomas
cocci-debug
Description: Binary data
_______________________________________________ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
