Am 23.06.19 um 15:13 schrieb Julia Lawall:
>
>
> On Sun, 23 Jun 2019, Markus Elfring wrote:
>
>>> Try
>>>
>>> ... when any
>>>
>>> just before the final ). In some circumstaces the parser doesn't accept
>>> an expression at the end of a sequence like you have here.
>>
>> Thanks for your quick re
On Sun, 23 Jun 2019, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > Try
> >
> > ... when any
> >
> > just before the final ). In some circumstaces the parser doesn't accept
> > an expression at the end of a sequence like you have here.
>
> Thanks for your quick response.
>
> The addition of such a SmPL ellipsis he
> Try
>
> ... when any
>
> just before the final ). In some circumstaces the parser doesn't accept
> an expression at the end of a sequence like you have here.
Thanks for your quick response.
The addition of such a SmPL ellipsis helps somehow.
But I am still not pleased with the generated transf
> Try
>
> ... when any
>
> just before the final ). In some circumstaces the parser doesn't accept
> an expression at the end of a sequence like you have here.
Thanks for your quick response.
The addition of such a SmPL ellipsis helps somehow.
But I am still not pleased with the generated transf
On Sun, 23 Jun 2019, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > Yu can do whatever you want, but you will get lotsof false positives if
> > you keep it. If you really want a star on the declaration then you need
> > to make two rules. The first that finds the positions of the places that
> > match and the seco
> Yu can do whatever you want, but you will get lotsof false positives if
> you keep it. If you really want a star on the declaration then you need
> to make two rules. The first that finds the positions of the places that
> match and the second that only puts a * when there is both a matched
> d
> Yu can do whatever you want, but you will get lotsof false positives if
> you keep it. If you really want a star on the declaration then you need
> to make two rules. The first that finds the positions of the places that
> match and the second that only puts a * when there is both a matched
> d
>>> It could be helpful to replace the last line by:
>>>
>>> (
>>> e3 = <+...var...+>
>>
>> Can this SmPL specification make sense as another when constraint?
>
> No.
I imagine that a few extensions like the following can become safer.
when != do ds while( \( var bo e3 \| var \) );
wh
>>> In that case, it would also be beneficial to remove the *
>>
>> I find the asterisk required here
>
> Yu can do whatever you want, but you will get lotsof false positives if
> you keep it. If you really want a star on the declaration
I would prefer to use a minus character for the specificati
On Sat, 22 Jun 2019, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > It could be helpful to replace the last line by:
> >
> > (
> > e3 = <+...var...+>
>
> Can this SmPL specification make sense as another when constraint?
No. When is about the code between the code that matches what is before
or after. If you p
> It could be helpful to replace the last line by:
>
> (
> e3 = <+...var...+>
Can this SmPL specification make sense as another when constraint?
> |
> * var = e3
> )
>
> In that case, it would also be beneficial to remove the *
I find the asterisk required here
> on the variable declaration
On Sat, 22 Jun 2019, Markus Elfring wrote:
> >> elfring@Sonne:~/Projekte/Linux/next-patched> spatch
> >> ~/Projekte/Coccinelle/janitor/show_questionable_variable_initialisation1.cocci
> >> drivers/misc/lkdtm/core.c
> >> …
> >> exn while in timeout_function
> >> Fatal error: exception Coccinell
>> elfring@Sonne:~/Projekte/Linux/next-patched> spatch
>> ~/Projekte/Coccinelle/janitor/show_questionable_variable_initialisation1.cocci
>> drivers/misc/lkdtm/core.c
>> …
>> exn while in timeout_function
>> Fatal error: exception Coccinelle_modules.Common.Impossible(56)
>>
>>
>> How do you think
On Thu, 20 Jun 2019, Markus Elfring wrote:
> Hello,
>
> A patch on a topic like “[next] lkdtm: remove redundant initialization of ret”
> caught also my software development attention.
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/6/14/265
> https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1088971/
> https://lore.kernel.o
Hello,
A patch on a topic like “[next] lkdtm: remove redundant initialization of ret”
caught also my software development attention.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/6/14/265
https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1088971/
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190614094311.24024-1-colin.k...@canonical.com/
15 matches
Mail list logo
