Re: [Cocci] coccinelle: api: add sprintf() support to device_attr_show

From: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@inria.fr>
To: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>
Cc: Coccinelle <cocci@systeme.lip6.fr>
Subject: Re: [Cocci] coccinelle: api: add sprintf() support to device_attr_show
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2020 09:39:04 +0200 (CEST)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2009050937480.2363@hadrien> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <afbbc6f1-ca60-e780-0139-d944165e456f@web.de>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1841 bytes --]

On Sat, 5 Sep 2020, Markus Elfring wrote:

> >>> What clarifications?
> >>
> >> Did you notice that my suggestion for the SmPL script variant “scripts/coccinelle/api/device_attr_show.cocci”
> >> can generate a patch?
> >> https://lore.kernel.org/cocci/0a9015b6-9037-59c5-31f2-cd2b32c86b50@linux.com/
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, it seems that this transformation approach produces also
> >> an inappropriate test result so far.
> >> Do we expect that the first part of the SmPL disjunction should match
> >> (for the source file “drivers/base/core.c” for example)?
> >
> > This semantic patch triggers the same problem as the original one,
>
> This view is interesting.
>
>
> > and should benefit from the same solution.
>
> I noticed the commit “improve andany optimization” yesterday.
> https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/commit/1a5502d4be8db0623b5acead974943098bdcbf57
>
> The change description contains the following information.
>
> “…
> It also makes the test failing_andany work, which did not work previously.
> …”
>
> I would hope for further positive consequences. Thus I have tried
> the software “Coccinelle 1.0.8-00168-gc4048513” out again.
> But I observe that the expected patch is still not generated
> if a special SmPL disjunction should be applied in my test case.
> The expected test result is displayed if a source code search
> should be performed according to extracted code from the first branch
> of such a disjunction (so that no disjunction is specified in
> the SmPL script variant).
>
> How will the clarification be continued?

The clarification will be continued when you provide a small semantic
patch and a C file that causes a problem.  I'm not going to hunt in years
of mail archives to find it.  If you want something to happen you have to
provide that information now.

julia

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 136 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci