On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 05:19:40PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> I looked at it a bit more, and I think the timeout is the best solution.
> The big jump backwards is under an if, and the pattern tries to match an
> if up to a return, which tries to go across gotos. So I think it is just
> a
I looked at it a bit more, and I think the timeout is the best solution.
The big jump backwards is under an if, and the pattern tries to match an
if up to a return, which tries to go across gotos. So I think it is just
a pathologically bad case.
julia
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 04:43:04PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2012, Fengguang Wu wrote:
>
> > Hi Julia,
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 04:15:19PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > > Do you use a timeout when you run Coccinelle You could put the argument
> > > --timeout 120.
> >
>
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> Hi Julia,
>
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 04:15:19PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > Do you use a timeout when you run Coccinelle You could put the argument
> > --timeout 120.
>
> Good to know that! I'll definitely try it.
Are you using the existing
Hi Julia,
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 04:15:19PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> Do you use a timeout when you run Coccinelle You could put the argument
> --timeout 120.
Good to know that! I'll definitely try it.
> The function has a goto from the very end to the very beginning, and there
> are a lot
Do you use a timeout when you run Coccinelle You could put the argument
--timeout 120.
The function has a goto from the very end to the very beginning, and there
are a lot of ifs in between. It seems possible that there is too much
information, and it gets too slow. I will look further.
julia
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 05:19:40PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
I looked at it a bit more, and I think the timeout is the best solution.
The big jump backwards is under an if, and the pattern tries to match an
if up to a return, which tries to go across gotos. So I think it is just
a
Do you use a timeout when you run Coccinelle You could put the argument
--timeout 120.
The function has a goto from the very end to the very beginning, and there
are a lot of ifs in between. It seems possible that there is too much
information, and it gets too slow. I will look further.
julia
Hi Julia,
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 04:15:19PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
Do you use a timeout when you run Coccinelle You could put the argument
--timeout 120.
Good to know that! I'll definitely try it.
The function has a goto from the very end to the very beginning, and there
are a lot of
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012, Fengguang Wu wrote:
Hi Julia,
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 04:15:19PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
Do you use a timeout when you run Coccinelle You could put the argument
--timeout 120.
Good to know that! I'll definitely try it.
Are you using the existing framework within
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 04:43:04PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012, Fengguang Wu wrote:
Hi Julia,
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 04:15:19PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
Do you use a timeout when you run Coccinelle You could put the argument
--timeout 120.
Good to know
I looked at it a bit more, and I think the timeout is the best solution.
The big jump backwards is under an if, and the pattern tries to match an
if up to a return, which tries to go across gotos. So I think it is just
a pathologically bad case.
julia
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the
12 matches
Mail list logo
