All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: elfring@users.sourceforge.net (SF Markus Elfring)
To: cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
Subject: [Cocci] [PATCH] coccinelle: assign signed result to unsigned variable
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2015 09:45:15 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <56064D0B.8060907@users.sourceforge.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <56051D2B.5040802@samsung.com>

> Generally I want to catch all assignments of signed function result to unsigned var.

Such a static source code analysis will be useful to some degree.


> In this script I have implemented it this way:
> 1. Look for all assignments 'unsigned = signed' (rs rule).
> 2. Check if signed from rs rule looks as a function call.

I recommend to reconsider a few implementation details because I have got
the impression that this check sequence is inappropriate.


> Is there better way to do it?

I suggest to fix expression weaknesses and a design mistake in this SmPL approach.

I guess that you want to determine functions with a signed return type first
before corresponding variable assignments will be checked further.
* Would you like to collect function names for this purpose by a general analysis
  of more source files?
  (How do you think about to store them in a dedicated database?)

* Which couple of function calls will be interesting for you?

* Should the search approach take also recursively included files into account?

Regards,
Markus

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
To: cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
Subject: Re: [PATCH] coccinelle: assign signed result to unsigned variable
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2015 07:45:15 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <56064D0B.8060907@users.sourceforge.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <56051D2B.5040802@samsung.com>

> Generally I want to catch all assignments of signed function result to unsigned var.

Such a static source code analysis will be useful to some degree.


> In this script I have implemented it this way:
> 1. Look for all assignments 'unsigned = signed' (rs rule).
> 2. Check if signed from rs rule looks as a function call.

I recommend to reconsider a few implementation details because I have got
the impression that this check sequence is inappropriate.


> Is there better way to do it?

I suggest to fix expression weaknesses and a design mistake in this SmPL approach.

I guess that you want to determine functions with a signed return type first
before corresponding variable assignments will be checked further.
* Would you like to collect function names for this purpose by a general analysis
  of more source files?
  (How do you think about to store them in a dedicated database?)

* Which couple of function calls will be interesting for you?

* Should the search approach take also recursively included files into account?

Regards,
Markus

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
To: Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@samsung.com>
Cc: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>,
	Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@lip6.fr>,
	Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>,
	Michal Marek <mmarek@suse.com>,
	Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@imag.fr>,
	kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
Subject: Re: [PATCH] coccinelle: assign signed result to unsigned variable
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2015 09:45:15 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <56064D0B.8060907@users.sourceforge.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <56051D2B.5040802@samsung.com>

> Generally I want to catch all assignments of signed function result to unsigned var.

Such a static source code analysis will be useful to some degree.


> In this script I have implemented it this way:
> 1. Look for all assignments 'unsigned = signed' (rs rule).
> 2. Check if signed from rs rule looks as a function call.

I recommend to reconsider a few implementation details because I have got
the impression that this check sequence is inappropriate.


> Is there better way to do it?

I suggest to fix expression weaknesses and a design mistake in this SmPL approach.

I guess that you want to determine functions with a signed return type first
before corresponding variable assignments will be checked further.
* Would you like to collect function names for this purpose by a general analysis
  of more source files?
  (How do you think about to store them in a dedicated database?)

* Which couple of function calls will be interesting for you?

* Should the search approach take also recursively included files into account?

Regards,
Markus

  parent reply	other threads:[~2015-09-26  7:45 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 89+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-09-24 12:54 [Cocci] [PATCH] coccinelle: assign signed result to unsigned variable Andrzej Hajda
2015-09-24 12:54 ` Andrzej Hajda
2015-09-24 15:51 ` [Cocci] " SF Markus Elfring
2015-09-24 15:51   ` SF Markus Elfring
2015-09-24 15:51   ` SF Markus Elfring
2015-09-25 10:08   ` [Cocci] " Andrzej Hajda
2015-09-25 10:08     ` Andrzej Hajda
2015-09-25 10:08     ` Andrzej Hajda
2015-09-25 15:51     ` [Cocci] " SF Markus Elfring
2015-09-25 15:51       ` SF Markus Elfring
2015-09-25 15:51       ` SF Markus Elfring
2015-09-26  7:45     ` SF Markus Elfring [this message]
2015-09-26  7:45       ` SF Markus Elfring
2015-09-26  7:45       ` SF Markus Elfring
2015-09-26  9:07       ` [Cocci] " Julia Lawall
2015-09-26  9:07         ` Julia Lawall
2015-09-26  9:07         ` Julia Lawall
2015-09-26  9:41         ` [Cocci] " SF Markus Elfring
2015-09-26  9:41           ` SF Markus Elfring
2015-09-26  9:41           ` SF Markus Elfring
2015-09-26  9:45           ` [Cocci] " Julia Lawall
2015-09-26  9:45             ` Julia Lawall
2015-09-26  9:45             ` Julia Lawall
2015-09-26  9:52             ` [Cocci] " SF Markus Elfring
2015-09-26  9:52               ` SF Markus Elfring
2015-09-26  9:52               ` SF Markus Elfring
2015-09-26  9:55               ` [Cocci] " Julia Lawall
2015-09-26  9:55                 ` Julia Lawall
2015-09-26  9:55                 ` Julia Lawall
2015-09-26 11:43                 ` [Cocci] " SF Markus Elfring
2015-09-26 11:43                   ` SF Markus Elfring
2015-09-26 11:43                   ` SF Markus Elfring
2015-09-26 13:55                   ` [Cocci] " Julia Lawall
2015-09-26 13:55                     ` Julia Lawall
2015-09-26 13:55                     ` Julia Lawall
2015-09-26 15:22                     ` [Cocci] " SF Markus Elfring
2015-09-26 15:22                       ` SF Markus Elfring
2015-09-26 15:22                       ` SF Markus Elfring
2015-09-26 15:30                       ` [Cocci] " Julia Lawall
2015-09-26 15:30                         ` Julia Lawall
2015-09-26 15:30                         ` Julia Lawall
2015-09-26 15:50                         ` [Cocci] " SF Markus Elfring
2015-09-26 15:50                           ` SF Markus Elfring
2015-09-26 15:50                           ` SF Markus Elfring
2015-09-26 15:55                           ` [Cocci] " Julia Lawall
2015-09-26 15:55                             ` Julia Lawall
2015-09-26 15:55                             ` Julia Lawall
2015-09-26 16:01                             ` [Cocci] " SF Markus Elfring
2015-09-26 16:01                               ` SF Markus Elfring
2015-09-26 16:01                               ` SF Markus Elfring
2015-09-28 10:54         ` [Cocci] [PATCH v2] " Andrzej Hajda
2015-09-28 10:54           ` Andrzej Hajda
2015-09-28 10:54           ` Andrzej Hajda
2015-09-28 11:32           ` [Cocci] " Julia Lawall
2015-09-28 11:32             ` Julia Lawall
2015-09-28 11:32             ` Julia Lawall
2015-09-28 11:59             ` [Cocci] " Andrzej Hajda
2015-09-28 11:59               ` Andrzej Hajda
2015-09-28 11:59               ` Andrzej Hajda
2015-09-30 21:51               ` [Cocci] " Julia Lawall
2015-09-30 21:51                 ` Julia Lawall
2015-09-30 21:51                 ` Julia Lawall
2015-09-28 12:07           ` [Cocci] " SF Markus Elfring
2015-09-28 12:07             ` SF Markus Elfring
2015-09-28 12:07             ` SF Markus Elfring
2015-09-28 12:12             ` [Cocci] " Andrzej Hajda
2015-09-28 12:12               ` Andrzej Hajda
2015-09-28 12:12               ` Andrzej Hajda
2015-09-28 12:20               ` [Cocci] " SF Markus Elfring
2015-09-28 12:20                 ` SF Markus Elfring
2015-09-28 12:20                 ` SF Markus Elfring
2015-09-28 12:42                 ` [Cocci] " Julia Lawall
2015-09-28 12:42                   ` Julia Lawall
2015-09-28 12:42                   ` Julia Lawall
2015-09-28 12:55                   ` SF Markus Elfring
2015-09-28 12:55                     ` SF Markus Elfring
2015-09-28 12:55                     ` SF Markus Elfring
2015-09-28 13:13                     ` Julia Lawall
2015-09-28 13:13                       ` Julia Lawall
2015-09-28 13:13                       ` Julia Lawall
2015-09-28 13:53                       ` SF Markus Elfring
2015-09-28 13:53                         ` SF Markus Elfring
2015-09-28 13:53                         ` SF Markus Elfring
2015-09-28 15:07                         ` Julia Lawall
2015-09-28 15:07                           ` Julia Lawall
2015-09-28 15:07                           ` Julia Lawall
2015-10-03  7:09           ` Julia Lawall
2015-10-03  7:09             ` Julia Lawall
2015-10-03  7:09             ` Julia Lawall

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=56064D0B.8060907@users.sourceforge.net \
    --to=elfring@users.sourceforge.net \
    --cc=cocci@systeme.lip6.fr \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.