From: elfring@users.sourceforge.net (SF Markus Elfring)
To: cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
Subject: [Cocci] Finding unstored return values with SmPL
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 13:31:40 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <55ACDC1C.1040005@users.sourceforge.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1507181351130.2042@localhost6.localdomain6>
> Do you really need to use a regular expression here?
> Why not use a disjunction in the pattern?
Another source code analysis approach like the following might make
the involved software design decisions a bit more clear.
@show_unstored_return_values@
identifier allocation =~ "^(?x)
(?:
pthread_mutex_(?:try|un)?lock
|
sigaction
)$", structure_var, var, work;
field element;
struct structure_type;
type data_type, return_type;
@@
return_type work(...)
{
<+...
(
data_type var = allocation(...);
|
structure_type structure_var = { ... .element = allocation(...) ... };
|
(
var
|
structure_var
)
= allocation(...)
|
* (void) allocation(...);
|
* allocation(...)
)
...+>
}
elfring at Sonne:~/Projekte/Coccinelle/janitor> spatch.opt -sp-file show_unstored_return_values2.cocci unchecked_return_values1.c
init_defs_builtins: /usr/local/lib/coccinelle/standard.h
181 182
Fatal error: exception Failure("meta: parse error: \n = File \"show_unstored_return_values2.cocci\", line 9, column 21, charpos = 181\n around = ';', whole content = struct structure_type;\n")
How can this "surprise" be fixed?
> How is it useful to match just thf function call.
Does the following small source code example contain a few update candidates
for further considerations?
#include <pthread.h>
static pthread_mutex_t my_lock = PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER;
static unsigned long my_counter = 1;
void increment_a_shared_variable(void)
{
pthread_mutex_lock(&my_lock);
++my_counter;
pthread_mutex_unlock(&my_lock);
}
> This doesn't show anything about whether or not the return value is stored.
Does the following SmPL script draft show another interesting application
of the semantic patch language?
@show_unstored_return_values@
identifier allocation =~ "^(?x)
(?:
pthread_mutex_(?:try|un)?lock
|
sigaction
)$", var, work;
type data_type, return_type;
@@
return_type work(...)
{
<+...
(
data_type var = allocation(...);
|
var = allocation(...)
|
* (void) allocation(...);
|
* allocation(...)
)
...+>
}
elfring at Sonne:~/Projekte/Coccinelle/janitor> spatch.opt -sp-file show_unstored_return_values3.cocci unchecked_return_values1.c
init_defs_builtins: /usr/local/lib/coccinelle/standard.h
HANDLING: unchecked_return_values1.c
diff =
--- unchecked_return_values1.c
+++ /tmp/cocci-output-7564-385170-unchecked_return_values1.c
@@ -5,7 +5,5 @@ static unsigned long my_counter = 1;
void increment_a_shared_variable(void)
{
- pthread_mutex_lock(&my_lock);
++my_counter;
- pthread_mutex_unlock(&my_lock);
}
How do you think about my imaginations for corresponding software improvements?
Regards,
Markus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-07-20 11:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-07-15 9:00 [Cocci] Finding unstored return values with SmPL SF Markus Elfring
2015-07-15 10:30 ` Julia Lawall
2015-07-18 11:40 ` SF Markus Elfring
2015-07-18 11:52 ` Julia Lawall
2015-07-18 12:32 ` SF Markus Elfring
2015-07-18 12:52 ` Julia Lawall
2015-07-18 13:36 ` SF Markus Elfring
2015-07-18 19:57 ` Julia Lawall
2015-07-19 13:43 ` SF Markus Elfring
2015-07-18 20:09 ` Julia Lawall
2015-07-19 12:54 ` SF Markus Elfring
2015-07-19 13:06 ` Julia Lawall
2015-07-19 14:42 ` SF Markus Elfring
2015-07-19 16:21 ` Julia Lawall
2015-07-19 18:48 ` SF Markus Elfring
2015-07-19 18:49 ` Julia Lawall
2015-07-20 11:31 ` SF Markus Elfring [this message]
2015-07-20 11:37 ` Julia Lawall
2015-07-20 12:55 ` [Cocci] Finding designated initialisers " SF Markus Elfring
2015-07-20 13:27 ` [Cocci] Finding unstored return values " SF Markus Elfring
2015-07-20 16:28 ` Julia Lawall
2015-07-20 20:23 ` [Cocci] Finding designated initialisers " SF Markus Elfring
2015-07-20 20:38 ` Julia Lawall
2015-07-21 5:47 ` SF Markus Elfring
2015-08-08 8:05 ` SF Markus Elfring
2015-08-08 8:25 ` Julia Lawall
2015-08-08 8:41 ` SF Markus Elfring
2015-08-08 11:40 ` Julia Lawall
2015-08-08 11:58 ` SF Markus Elfring
2015-08-08 12:10 ` Julia Lawall
2015-08-08 12:56 ` SF Markus Elfring
2015-07-22 17:42 ` [Cocci] Finding unstored return values " SF Markus Elfring
2015-07-22 17:44 ` Julia Lawall
2015-07-23 5:20 ` SF Markus Elfring
2015-07-23 5:26 ` Julia Lawall
2015-08-05 11:00 ` SF Markus Elfring
[not found] ` <alpine.DEB.2.02.1508051434540.2198@localhost6.localdomain6>
[not found] ` <55C2229E.7030409@users.sourceforge.net>
[not found] ` <alpine.DEB.2.02.1508051652140.2198@localhost6.localdomain6>
[not found] ` <55C2280A.6000204@users.sourceforge.net>
[not found] ` <alpine.DEB.2.02.1508051718110.2198@localhost6.localdomain6>
[not found] ` <55C2328C.5020405@users.sourceforge.net>
[not found] ` <alpine.DEB.2.02.1508051948060.2039@localhost6.localdomain6>
2015-08-06 9:04 ` [Cocci] Fine-tuning for the processing of function name lists? SF Markus Elfring
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=55ACDC1C.1040005@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox