From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C4A6C43613 for ; Sat, 22 Jun 2019 13:19:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from isis.lip6.fr (isis.lip6.fr [132.227.60.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 008FF2063F for ; Sat, 22 Jun 2019 13:19:38 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 008FF2063F Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=lip6.fr Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=cocci-bounces@systeme.lip6.fr Received: from systeme.lip6.fr (systeme.lip6.fr [132.227.104.7]) by isis.lip6.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id x5MDJOae004424; Sat, 22 Jun 2019 15:19:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: from systeme.lip6.fr (systeme.lip6.fr [127.0.0.1]) by systeme.lip6.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id A78B27779; Sat, 22 Jun 2019 15:19:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: from isis.lip6.fr (isis.lip6.fr [132.227.60.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by systeme.lip6.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 820347770 for ; Sat, 22 Jun 2019 15:19:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by isis.lip6.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id x5MDJNVb006486 for ; Sat, 22 Jun 2019 15:19:23 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.63,404,1557180000"; d="scan'208";a="311072561" Received: from abo-12-105-68.mrs.modulonet.fr (HELO hadrien) ([85.68.105.12]) by mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 22 Jun 2019 15:19:22 +0200 Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2019 15:19:22 +0200 (CEST) From: Julia Lawall X-X-Sender: jll@hadrien To: Markus Elfring In-Reply-To: <9d2ef926-62b9-d182-d6d6-cd82ca13173f@web.de> Message-ID: References: <9d2ef926-62b9-d182-d6d6-cd82ca13173f@web.de> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="8323329-1482508539-1561209562=:3253" X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, Sender e-mail whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (isis.lip6.fr [132.227.60.2]); Sat, 22 Jun 2019 15:19:25 +0200 (CEST) X-Greylist: IP, sender and recipient auto-whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (isis.lip6.fr [132.227.60.2]); Sat, 22 Jun 2019 15:19:23 +0200 (CEST) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.78 on 132.227.60.2 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.78 on 132.227.60.2 Cc: Coccinelle Subject: Re: [Cocci] Checking redundant variable initialisations with SmPL? X-BeenThere: cocci@systeme.lip6.fr X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: cocci-bounces@systeme.lip6.fr Errors-To: cocci-bounces@systeme.lip6.fr This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --8323329-1482508539-1561209562=:3253 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT On Sat, 22 Jun 2019, Markus Elfring wrote: > >> elfring@Sonne:~/Projekte/Linux/next-patched> spatch ~/Projekte/Coccinelle/janitor/show_questionable_variable_initialisation1.cocci drivers/misc/lkdtm/core.c > >> … > >> exn while in timeout_function > >> Fatal error: exception Coccinelle_modules.Common.Impossible(56) > >> > >> > >> How do you think about the software situation? > > > > This problem is now fixed. > > Another aspect was improved also for the Coccinelle software. > > The following SmPL script variant can point source code places out for > further considerations. > > @display@ > binary operator bo; > expression e1, e2, e3, call; > identifier var; > statement is, es; > type t; > @@ > *t var = e1; > ... when != if ( \( var bo e2 \| var \) ) is else es > when != call(..., var, ...) > when exists > *var = e3 It could be helpful to replace the last line by: ( e3 = <+...var...+> | * var = e3 ) In that case, it would also be beneficial to remove the * on the variable declaration because that will be activated regardless of which branch matches in the disjunction. julia > > > But it seems that data flow analysis would be needed to exclude remaining > false positives for such a source code search pattern. > > Regards, > Markus > --8323329-1482508539-1561209562=:3253 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci --8323329-1482508539-1561209562=:3253--