On Fri, 30 Mar 2018, Joe Perches wrote:

> On Thu, 2018-03-29 at 21:03 +0530, Varsha Rao wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 11:41 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 2018-03-28 at 23:27, Varsha Rao wrote:
> > > > This patch fixes the clang warning of extraneous parentheses, with the
> > > > following coccinelle script.
> > > >
> > > > @@
> > > > identifier i;
> > > > constant c;
> > > > @@
> > > > (
> > > > -((i == c))
> > > > +i == c
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > -((i <= c))
> > > > +i <= c
> > >
> > > Why just the "==" and "<=" cases?
> > > Why not "<", ">" and ">=" too?
> > >
> > > Why not expression instead of constant?
> >
> > Initially I had the other cases too and used expression instead of
> > constant. But the results included only "==" and "<=" cases with
> > constant. Along with one false positive case.
> hmm
> Perhaps you should use something like this?
> @@
> identifier i;
> constant c;
> @@
>
> -(
> \(i == c\|i <= c\|i < c\|i >= c\|i > c\)
> -)

This is not safe with respect to !.  The following seems to address this
problem:

@@
identifier i;
constant c;
expression e;
@@

(
!(e)
|
-(
\(i == c\|i <= c\|i < c\|i >= c\|i > c\)
-)
)

julia

Reply via email to