On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 04:30:10PM -0700, Jacob Keller wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 9:30 AM Jeff King <p...@peff.net> wrote:
> > I think that audit isn't actually too bad (but definitely not something
> > we should do for v2.19). The cocci patch I showed earlier hits most of
> > them. It misses the negated ones (e.g., "if (oidcmp(...))"). I'm not
> > sure if there's a way to ask coccinelle only for oidcmp()
> > used in a boolean context.
> >
>
> You can look for explicitly "if (oidcmp(...))" though. I don't know if
> you can catch *any* use which degrades to boolean outside of an if
> statement, but I wouldn't expect there to be too many of those?
Yeah, that was my thought, too. And I've been trying this all afternoon
without success. Why doesn't this work:
@@
expression a, b;
@@
- if (oidcmp(a, b))
+ if (!oideq(a, b))
I get:
Fatal error: exception Failure("minus: parse error: \n = File
\"contrib/coccinelle/oideq.cocci\", line 21, column 0, charpos =
221\n around = '', whole content = \n")
If I do:
- if (oidcmp(a, b)) { ... }
that seems to please the parser for the minus line. But I cannot include
the "..." on the plus line. Clearly the "..." part should be context,
but I can't seem to find the right syntax.
FWIW, I do have patches adding hasheq() and converting all of the
!oidcmp() cases. I may resort to hand-investigating each of the negated
ones, but I really feel like I should be able to do better with
coccinelle.
-Peff
