Re: [systemd-devel] Completion of error handling
I have no understanding of Coccinelle. I do not understand what you are saying. The application of a few scripts in the semantic patch language can occasionally help to improve some software, can't it? Now I'll try again to present more detailed source code analysis results according to specific software metrics. I assumed that each source file (*.c) provides only functions which unique names. ╔╤╗ ║│║ ║│ incidents║ ║ overview │ │║ ║│ total │ ≠ 0║ ║│ │ ≠ NULL ║ ╟┼───┼╢ ║│ │║ ║ non-empty │ │║ ║ return │ 20633 │ 15477 ║ ║ statements │ │║ ║│ │║ ╟┼───┼╢ ║│ │║ ║ non-void │ 5990 │ 5183 ║ ║ functions │ │║ ║│ │║ ╚╧═══╧╝ Does such a table indicate that there are some function implementations left over which will provide only the return value zero (or NULL)? A few specific examples: * client_timeout_resend_expire * config_parse_memory_limit * transfer_on_log * udev_rules_unref * writer_free Is this information worth for further considerations? Regards, Markus ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] Completion of error handling
On Sat, 25.07.15 08:11, SF Markus Elfring (elfr...@users.sourceforge.net) wrote: I am sorry Markus, but at this point you are just wasting our time. Be specific (i.e. by sending git patches, providing backtraces of crashes, or actual bug reports), otherwise this is of no help. I will now stop responding to your mails, unless you get more specific. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] Completion of error handling
No, nothing needs more discussion or attention in the context of systemd. I disagree here. - I would appreciate if return value ignorance can be still reduced at more source code places. Do you distinguish any update candidates which belong to a subsystem in this software? None of the above seems contain anything useful or is expected to contribute anything useful in the future. More time will pass by until the adoption of higher level tools might increase. Changes can be introduced by file formats which need some manual work. Would it be nice if a software evolution pattern should only be specified once and can be applied to a wide range of source files then automatically? This is a development mailing list, we discuss patches and actual code, and not vague questions like you ask. Do any updates need a bit of consensus before big efforts will be invested. Will any software developer (besides me) become interested to integrate a patch in the format of an AspectC++ file or a SmPL script for example? Regards, Markus ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] Completion of error handling
On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 8:11 AM, SF Markus Elfring elfr...@users.sourceforge.net wrote: We accept contributions only in git-format-patch frmatted patches, best via github PRs. The higher level patch formats I'm trying to make you aware of will also result in file changes which can be integrated by this content management interface depending on your general acceptance for corresponding software evolution. Examples: * Scripts in the semantic patch language can be processed for occasional patch generation by the Coccinelle software. http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/papers.php * Aspect files could be transformed during an enhanced build process by the AspectC++ software. http://aspectc.org/Publications.php Would you like to give thoughts for the extension of the software development toolbox a chance? I am sorry, your questions are not useful, because too generic. I hope that the software situation can also be improved by development methodology and technology you are more familiar with at the moment. Would you like to reopen a specific bug report for example? No, systemd does not plan to do anything here. https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/644 Update candidates: * How do you think about to look at calls for functions from the application programming interface POSIX threads again? * Does the usage of file output functions need another look? No, nothing needs more discussion or attention in the context of systemd. None of the above seems contain anything useful or is expected to contribute anything useful in the future. This is a development mailing list, we discuss patches and actual code, and not vague questions like you ask. Please stop posting this stuff or asking any more questions like this. Thanks, Kay ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] Completion of error handling
We accept contributions only in git-format-patch frmatted patches, best via github PRs. The higher level patch formats I'm trying to make you aware of will also result in file changes which can be integrated by this content management interface depending on your general acceptance for corresponding software evolution. Examples: * Scripts in the semantic patch language can be processed for occasional patch generation by the Coccinelle software. http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/papers.php * Aspect files could be transformed during an enhanced build process by the AspectC++ software. http://aspectc.org/Publications.php Would you like to give thoughts for the extension of the software development toolbox a chance? I am sorry, your questions are not useful, because too generic. I hope that the software situation can also be improved by development methodology and technology you are more familiar with at the moment. Would you like to reopen a specific bug report for example? https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/644 Update candidates: * How do you think about to look at calls for functions from the application programming interface POSIX threads again? * Does the usage of file output functions need another look? Regards, Markus ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] Completion of error handling
On Fri, 24.07.15 15:10, SF Markus Elfring (elfr...@users.sourceforge.net) wrote: An analysis script can point more source code places out for further considerations. Would you like to care for corresponding open issues? We are making heavy use of Coverity already on a daily basis, I think we are all good there. I wonder also about the status of some function implementations which return zero (or NULL) but no other value. So, what precisely are you wondering about? How do you think about to look at places once more which can be found with a small script like the following with the help of the semantic patch language (and the Coccinelle software)? I have no understanding of Coccinelle. I do not understand what you are saying. I contributed a bit to free software. I assume that you might find a few of these improvements a bit useful, don't you? Generally, please be specific, provide patches. We are much more interested in actual technical contribution, much less in just talking about stuff. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] Completion of error handling
I have no understanding of Coccinelle. This software provides the tool spatch which lets you specify transformations for C source code in a similar way you are used to already by the reuse of unified context diffs. http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/ I assume that you have eventually noticed specific updates on Linux source files which were automatically generated by this technology. https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git/tree/Documentation/coccinelle.txt?id=refs/tags/v4.1.3 I do not understand what you are saying. How do you think about to try the shown small source code analysis script out so that you can see from a generated patch directly where another look might be useful? Generally, please be specific, provide patches. I suggest to consider additional patch formats as a better preparation for software improvements. The Coccinelle software concentrates on the support for collateral evolutions. A specific update suggestion can be written as a diff script. Each diff targets only a concrete kind of software evolution. But there are methodologies evolving which support the encapsulation of cross-cutting concerns directly. Such known concerns are for example: * Logging * Error detection and corresponding exception handling Would further considerations be acceptable around a tool like AspectC++? http://aspectc.org/ We are much more interested in actual technical contribution, much less in just talking about stuff. I propose to integrate higher level algorithms and procedures into the software build process so that some manual software maintenance tasks can be reduced. Would you like to give thoughts for the extension of the software development toolbox a chance? Regards, Markus ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] Completion of error handling
On Fri, 24.07.15 18:15, SF Markus Elfring (elfr...@users.sourceforge.net) wrote: Generally, please be specific, provide patches. I suggest to consider additional patch formats as a better preparation for software improvements. We accept contributions only in git-format-patch frmatted patches, best via github PRs. If you have a patch in another format, please convert it into git-format-patch format, and file a PR. I propose to integrate higher level algorithms and procedures into the software build process so that some manual software maintenance tasks can be reduced. Would you like to give thoughts for the extension of the software development toolbox a chance? I am sorry, your questions are not useful, because too generic. Send specific patches, be explicit. Otherwise this is not useful to us, sorry, Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] Completion of error handling
On Thu, 23.07.15 08:55, SF Markus Elfring (elfr...@users.sourceforge.net) wrote: Heya, I would like to continue the clarification of open issues around a topic like Completion of error handling. https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/644 I hope that the amount of unchecked return values can be reduced further in affected source files by the reuse of dedicated software development tools. Which source code analysis approaches would you like to reconsider once more? We are regularly checking the systemd sources with coverity and the llvm/clang analyzer. I wonder also about the status of some function implementations which return zero (or NULL) but no other value. So, what precisely are you wondering about? Also, on github, you keep posting stuff that looks like you are a bot. To prove you are not a bot, can you please tell me what five times 15 is? Thanks, Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
[systemd-devel] Completion of error handling
Hello, I would like to continue the clarification of open issues around a topic like Completion of error handling. https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/644 I hope that the amount of unchecked return values can be reduced further in affected source files by the reuse of dedicated software development tools. Which source code analysis approaches would you like to reconsider once more? I wonder also about the status of some function implementations which return zero (or NULL) but no other value. Are you interested to clarify corresponding details a bit more? Regards, Markus ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
