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=-10.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 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 E0956C43461 for ; Sat, 5 Sep 2020 07:39:38 +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 DCC3920760 for ; Sat, 5 Sep 2020 07:39:37 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org DCC3920760 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=inria.fr Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass 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 0857d9SD017540; Sat, 5 Sep 2020 09:39:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: from systeme.lip6.fr (systeme.lip6.fr [127.0.0.1]) by systeme.lip6.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE236742E; Sat, 5 Sep 2020 09:39:09 +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 7AFB46717 for ; Sat, 5 Sep 2020 09:39:07 +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 0857d5BH017871 for ; Sat, 5 Sep 2020 09:39:05 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.76,359,1592863200"; d="scan'208";a="358156309" Received: from abo-173-121-68.mrs.modulonet.fr (HELO hadrien) ([85.68.121.173]) by mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 05 Sep 2020 09:39:04 +0200 Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2020 09:39:04 +0200 (CEST) From: Julia Lawall X-X-Sender: jll@hadrien To: Markus Elfring In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <8e76e81f-970b-b1f7-840d-10506dc3311a@linux.com> <34004dc6-e7a6-7557-4c64-2ec74872baea@web.de> <1e60d36d-7f2b-98eb-5fe3-9729b97ba360@web.de> User-Agent: Alpine 2.22 (DEB 394 2020-01-19) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="8323329-687145294-1599291545=:2363" 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, 05 Sep 2020 09:39:10 +0200 (CEST) X-Greylist: Sender passed SPF test, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (isis.lip6.fr [132.227.60.2]); Sat, 05 Sep 2020 09:39:05 +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] coccinelle: api: add sprintf() support to device_attr_show 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. --8323329-687145294-1599291545=:2363 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT 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 --8323329-687145294-1599291545=:2363 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 --8323329-687145294-1599291545=:2363--