> …
> > +(
> > +for_each_node_by_name(n,e1) S
> > +|
> …
> > +|
> > +for_each_node_with_property(n,e1) S
> > +)
> …
>
>
> Do you indicate any occurrence frequencies or probabilities for the mentioned
> macro calls
> by the ordering in this disjunction for the semantic patch language?
I would like to share another source code analysis approach.
I hope that this contribution can trigger further helpful software development
ideas.
@initialize:python@
@@
import sys, sqlalchemy
sys.stderr.write("\n".join( ("Using SQLAlchemy version:",
sqlalchemy.__version__) ))
sys.stderr.write("\n")
from sqlalchemy import Column, Integer, String, create_engine
from sqlalchemy.ext.declarative import declarative_base
from sqlalchemy.orm import sessionmaker
engine = create_engine("sqlite:///:memory:", echo=False)
base = declarative_base()
class action(base):
__tablename__ = "macros"
name = Column(String, primary_key=True)
source_file = Column(String, primary_key=True)
macro = Column(String, primary_key=True)
line = Column(Integer, primary_key=True)
column = Column(Integer, primary_key=True)
def __repr__(self):
return "" % (self.name,
self.source_file,
self.macro,
self.line,
self.column)
configured_session = sessionmaker(bind=engine)
session = configured_session()
base.metadata.create_all(engine)
def store_position(source, loop):
"""Add data to an internal table."""
for place in source:
entry = action(name = place.current_element,
source_file = place.file,
macro = loop,
line = place.line,
column = int(place.column) + 1)
session.add(entry)
@find@
identifier for_loop, work;
iterator name for_each_node_by_name,
for_each_node_by_type,
for_each_node_with_property,
for_each_matching_node,
for_each_matching_node_and_match,
for_each_compatible_node,
for_each_child_of_node,
for_each_available_child_of_node;
position pos;
statement s;
type t;
@@
t work(...)
{
<+...
(for_each_node_by_name@for_loop@pos(...) s
|for_each_node_by_type@for_loop@pos(...) s
|for_each_matching_node@for_loop@pos(...) s
|for_each_node_with_property@for_loop@pos(...) s
|for_each_compatible_node@for_loop@pos(...) s
|for_each_matching_node_and_match@for_loop@pos(...) s
|for_each_child_of_node@for_loop@pos(...) s
|for_each_available_child_of_node@for_loop@pos(...) s
)
...+>
}
@script:python collection@
fl << find.for_loop;
place << find.pos;
@@
store_position(place, fl)
@finalize:python@
@@
session.commit()
from sqlalchemy import func
entries = session.query(func.count()).select_from(action).scalar()
if entries > 0:
from sqlalchemy.sql import literal_column
delimiter = "|"
sys.stdout.write(delimiter.join(['"source file"', 'macro', 'incidence']))
sys.stdout.write("\r\n")
mark = ['"', '', '"']
for file, \
macro, \
incidence in session.query(action.source_file,
action.macro,
func.count(literal_column("*"))
) \
.group_by(action.source_file, action.macro) \
.order_by(action.source_file,
func.count(literal_column("*")).desc()):
mark[1] = file
sys.stdout.write(delimiter.join([''.join(mark), macro, str(incidence)]))
sys.stdout.write("\r\n")
sys.stdout.write("=\r\n")
sys.stdout.write(delimiter.join(['macro', 'incidence']))
sys.stdout.write("\r\n")
for macro, \
incidence in session.query(action.macro,
func.count(literal_column("*"))) \
.group_by(action.macro) \
.order_by(func.count(literal_column("*")).desc()):
sys.stdout.write(macro + delimiter + str(incidence))
sys.stdout.write("\r\n")
else:
sys.stderr.write("No result for this analysis!\n")
Test result:
elfring@Sonne:~/Projekte/Linux/next-patched> git checkout next-20201016 &&
XX=$(date) && time spatch --python $(which python3) --dir .
~/Projekte/Coccinelle/janitor/report_for_each_node_macro_calls.cocci;
YY=$(date) && echo "$XX | $YY"
…
Using SQLAlchemy version:
1.3.19
518 files match
…
=
macro|incidence
for_each_child_of_node|357
for_each_available_child_of_node|157
for_each_compatible_node|79
for_each_node_by_name|55
for_each_node_by_type|53
for_each_matching_node|22
for_each_matching_node_and_match|16
for_each_node_with_property|6
real3m26,039s
user2m3,453s
sys 0m5,041s
Sa 17. Okt 07:00:42 CEST 2020 | Sa 17. Okt 07:04:08 CEST 2020
Can such facts influence the specification of efficient SmPL disjunctions any
more?
Would you like to look for software configuration alternatives for better
parallel data processing?
Regards,
Markus
