On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 05:25:47PM +0100, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> On 11/20/19 4:24 PM, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> > Minor code simplification.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lur...@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > hw/core/qdev.c | 7 ++-----
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/hw/core/qdev.c b/hw/core/qdev.c
> > index cf1ba28fe3..c79befc865 100644
> > --- a/hw/core/qdev.c
> > +++ b/hw/core/qdev.c
> > @@ -394,11 +394,8 @@ static NamedGPIOList
> > *qdev_get_named_gpio_list(DeviceState *dev,
> > NamedGPIOList *ngl;
> > QLIST_FOREACH(ngl, &dev->gpios, node) {
> > - /* NULL is a valid and matchable name, otherwise do a normal
> > - * strcmp match.
> > - */
> > - if ((!ngl->name && !name) ||
> > - (name && ngl->name && strcmp(name, ngl->name) == 0)) {
> > + /* NULL is a valid and matchable name. */
> > + if (g_strcmp0(name, ngl->name) == 0) {
>
> Cocci pattern?
This seems tricky because there are many different ways of
writing an equivalent expression. I tried to catch a few
variations, but the script below didn't find any other
occurrences except for the one being touched by this patch.
@@
expression A, B;
@@
(
-(!A && !B) || (A && B && !strcmp(A, B))
+!g_strcmp0(A, B)
|
-(!B && !A) || (A && B && !strcmp(A, B))
+!g_strcmp0(A, B)
|
-(!A && !B) || (B && A && !strcmp(A, B))
+!g_strcmp0(A, B)
|
-(!B && !A) || (B && A && !strcmp(A, B))
+!g_strcmp0(A, B)
|
-(!A && !B) || (B && A && strcmp(A, B) == 0)
+!g_strcmp0(A, B)
|
-(!B && !A) || (B && A && strcmp(A, B) == 0)
+!g_strcmp0(A, B)
|
-(!A && !B) || (A && B && strcmp(A, B) == 0)
+!g_strcmp0(A, B)
|
-(!B && !A) || (A && B && strcmp(A, B) == 0)
+!g_strcmp0(A, B)
)
--
Eduardo
