On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-09-20 at 15:14 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > The semantic patch below finds a binary operator in a macro and a binary
> > operator in the use of the macro, and checks if the priority of the
> > operator in the macro is higher (lower number)
On Tue, 2016-09-20 at 15:14 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> The semantic patch below finds a binary operator in a macro and a binary
> operator in the use of the macro, and checks if the priority of the
> operator in the macro is higher (lower number) than the priority of the
> operator in the use. I
On Tue, 2016-09-20 at 10:07 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-09-20 at 15:14 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > The semantic patch below finds a binary operator in a macro and a binary
> > operator in the use of the macro, and checks if the priority of the
> > operator in the macro is higher (lo
On Tue, 2016-09-20 at 15:14 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> The semantic patch below finds a binary operator in a macro and a binary
> operator in the use of the macro, and checks if the priority of the
> operator in the macro is higher (lower number) than the priority of the
> operator in the use. I
The semantic patch below finds a binary operator in a macro and a binary
operator in the use of the macro, and checks if the priority of the
operator in the macro is higher (lower number) than the priority of the
operator in the use. If this is the case, it adds parentheses in the use,
which is no
On Sun, 2016-09-18 at 07:09 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Sep 2016, Joe Perches wrote:
> > I also submitted a similar checkpatch addition that looks
> > for non-comma operators used macro arguments in function
> > definitions.
> >
> > The checkpatch test has the same weakness as the cocci
On Sun, 2016-09-18 at 06:57 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> You did say that checkpatch was giving a lot of noise. In the end, is it
> actually just that there are a lot of changes to make
Actually, the first attempt used just the checkpatch $Operators
pattern match which also matches a comma so the
On Sat, 17 Sep 2016, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sat, 2016-09-17 at 22:24 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > diff -u -p a/lib/sha1.c b/lib/sha1.c
> []
> > @@ -49,18 +49,18 @@
> > * the input data, the next mix it from the 512-bit array.
> > */
> > #define SHA_SRC(t) get_unaligned_be32((__u32 *)data
On Sat, 17 Sep 2016, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sat, 2016-09-17 at 22:24 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
>
> (A 2.2MB message that (perhaps thankfully) didn't get through to lkml)
>
> > Below is the Coccinelle output for the case where the definition of the
> > macro is a single expression. There is al
On Sat, 2016-09-17 at 22:24 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
(A 2.2MB message that (perhaps thankfully) didn't get through to lkml)
> Below is the Coccinelle output for the case where the definition of the
> macro is a single expression. There is also the case where it is a
> sequence of statements, b
On Sat, 2016-09-17 at 22:24 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> diff -u -p a/lib/sha1.c b/lib/sha1.c
[]
> @@ -49,18 +49,18 @@
> * the input data, the next mix it from the 512-bit array.
> */
> #define SHA_SRC(t) get_unaligned_be32((__u32 *)data + t)
> -#define SHA_MIX(t) rol32(W(t+13) ^ W(t+8) ^ W(t+
On Sun, 2016-09-04 at 18:10 +0800, Julia Lawall wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Sep 2016, Joe Perches wrote:
> > There are many nominally incorrect macro definitions
> > in linux-kernel source where parentheses are not used
> > for various macros arguments with calculations.
> >
> > Does coccinelle or smatch ha
On Sat, 3 Sep 2016, Joe Perches wrote:
> There are many nominally incorrect macro definitions
> in linux-kernel source where parentheses are not used
> for various macros arguments with calculations.
>
> Does coccinelle or smatch have the ability to detect
> potential macro misuse where argument
No. I can't think of a way to write a script for that in smatch. It
works on the pre-processed code. There is a hack around to tell if code
is inside a macro or not, but you can't tell if code is a macro
parameter.
regards,
dan carpenter
There are many nominally incorrect macro definitions
in linux-kernel source where parentheses are not used
for various macros arguments with calculations.
Does coccinelle or smatch have the ability to detect
potential macro misuse where arguments passed to the
macro are not correctly parenthesized
15 matches
Mail list logo
