> 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
