Re: [Cocci] coccinelle: api: add sprintf() support to device_attr_show
On Mon, 17 Aug 2020, Markus Elfring wrote: > > What clarifications? > > Did you notice that my suggestion for the SmPL script variant > “scripts/coccinelle/api/device_attr_show.cocci” > can generate a patch? > https://lore.kernel.org/cocci/0a9015b6-9037-59c5-31f2-cd2b32c86...@linux.com/ > > Unfortunately, it seems that this transformation approach produces also > an inappropriate test result so far. > Do we expect that the first part of the SmPL disjunction should match > (for the source file “drivers/base/core.c” for example)? This semantic patch triggers the same problem as the original one, and should benefit from the same solution. julia___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
Re: [Cocci] coccinelle: api: add sprintf() support to device_attr_show
On Mon, 17 Aug 2020, Markus Elfring wrote: > >> Can missing source code matches trigger the consequence that questionable > >> branches would be applied there? > > > > No. > > I imagine that corresponding views will need further clarifications. What clarifications? In the failing_andany example the problem is that less code is transformed than should be. So no "quationable branches" are applied. julia > > > > The problem causes transformations that should be applied not to be applied. > > I reported errors according to the software category “failing tests - TODO”. > Thus I am still looking for solutions in affected application areas. > > Regards, > Markus >___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
Re: [Cocci] coccinelle: api: add sprintf() support to device_attr_show
> The problem has nothing to do with disjunctions. Can missing source code matches trigger the consequence that questionable branches would be applied there? Will the clarification for the issue “failing tests - TODO” be continued? Regards, Markus ___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
Re: [Cocci] coccinelle: api: add sprintf() support to device_attr_show
On Mon, 17 Aug 2020, Markus Elfring wrote: > > The problem has nothing to do with disjunctions. > > Can missing source code matches trigger the consequence that questionable > branches would be applied there? No. The problem causes transformations that should be applied not to be applied. julia > > Will the clarification for the issue “failing tests - TODO” be continued? > > Regards, > Markus >___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
Re: [Cocci] coccinelle: api: add sprintf() support to device_attr_show
> I will see if it can be fixed. How will the issue “failing tests - TODO” evolve further? https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/commit/f2d7ec9006c89610bd1aab4662fcf100e3e6d469#diff-13ff769079511ec7b5dddef7143b2b93R1 How do the comments there fit to undesirable effects for SmPL disjunctions? Regards, Markus ___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
Re: [Cocci] coccinelle: api: add sprintf() support to device_attr_show
On Mon, 17 Aug 2020, Markus Elfring wrote: > > I will see if it can be fixed. > > How will the issue “failing tests - TODO” evolve further? > https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/commit/f2d7ec9006c89610bd1aab4662fcf100e3e6d469#diff-13ff769079511ec7b5dddef7143b2b93R1 failing_andany.cocci is solved with the fix for the current problem. > > How do the comments there fit to undesirable effects for SmPL disjunctions? The problem has nothing to do with disjunctions. julia___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
