* [PATCH] blame.c: replace instance of !oidcmp for oideq @ 2020-09-07 17:16 Edmundo Carmona Antoranz 2020-09-07 17:21 ` Edmundo Carmona Antoranz 2020-09-08 19:07 ` Derrick Stolee 0 siblings, 2 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: Edmundo Carmona Antoranz @ 2020-09-07 17:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: whydoubt, git; +Cc: Edmundo Carmona Antoranz --- blame.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/blame.c b/blame.c index 1be1cd82a2..b475bfa1c0 100644 --- a/blame.c +++ b/blame.c @@ -1353,8 +1353,8 @@ static struct blame_origin *find_origin(struct repository *r, else { int compute_diff = 1; if (origin->commit->parents && - !oidcmp(&parent->object.oid, - &origin->commit->parents->item->object.oid)) + oideq(&parent->object.oid, + &origin->commit->parents->item->object.oid)) compute_diff = maybe_changed_path(r, origin, bd); if (compute_diff) -- 2.28.0 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] blame.c: replace instance of !oidcmp for oideq 2020-09-07 17:16 [PATCH] blame.c: replace instance of !oidcmp for oideq Edmundo Carmona Antoranz @ 2020-09-07 17:21 ` Edmundo Carmona Antoranz 2020-09-08 13:55 ` Edmundo Carmona Antoranz 2020-09-08 19:07 ` Derrick Stolee 1 sibling, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread From: Edmundo Carmona Antoranz @ 2020-09-07 17:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Git List, dstolee On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 11:16 AM Edmundo Carmona Antoranz <eantoranz@gmail.com> wrote: Blamed the wrong branch. I should have looped Derrick instead of Jeff. Sorry about that. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] blame.c: replace instance of !oidcmp for oideq 2020-09-07 17:21 ` Edmundo Carmona Antoranz @ 2020-09-08 13:55 ` Edmundo Carmona Antoranz 0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: Edmundo Carmona Antoranz @ 2020-09-08 13:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Git List, dstolee On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 11:21 AM Edmundo Carmona Antoranz <eantoranz@gmail.com> wrote: > Blamed the wrong branch. I should have looped Derrick instead of Jeff. > Sorry about that. I realized I didn't sign it off. Should I send it again? Or given that it's an almost 1-liner, it's ok? If I send it again, I will provide just a little more context about having the !oidcmp calls replaced for oideq in previous versions. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] blame.c: replace instance of !oidcmp for oideq 2020-09-07 17:16 [PATCH] blame.c: replace instance of !oidcmp for oideq Edmundo Carmona Antoranz 2020-09-07 17:21 ` Edmundo Carmona Antoranz @ 2020-09-08 19:07 ` Derrick Stolee 2020-09-09 9:11 ` Jeff King 1 sibling, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread From: Derrick Stolee @ 2020-09-08 19:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Edmundo Carmona Antoranz, whydoubt, git, Jeff King On 9/7/2020 1:16 PM, Edmundo Carmona Antoranz wrote: > --- Please include sign-off. I saw you reported your intention there in another message, but it's probably best to just send it again. This message could also mention 14438c4 (introduce hasheq() and oideq(), 2018-08-28) which introduced oideq(). This use of !oidcmp() was introduced by 0906ac2b (blame: use changed-path Bloom filters, 2020-04-16). My bad. There is no good reason to introduce this use since it is well after the oideq() method was introduced. > @@ -1353,8 +1353,8 @@ static struct blame_origin *find_origin(struct repository *r, > else { > int compute_diff = 1; > if (origin->commit->parents && > - !oidcmp(&parent->object.oid, > - &origin->commit->parents->item->object.oid)) > + oideq(&parent->object.oid, > + &origin->commit->parents->item->object.oid)) > compute_diff = maybe_changed_path(r, origin, bd); The code itself looks correct. Thanks, -Stolee ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] blame.c: replace instance of !oidcmp for oideq 2020-09-08 19:07 ` Derrick Stolee @ 2020-09-09 9:11 ` Jeff King 2020-09-09 14:00 ` Edmundo Carmona Antoranz 0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread From: Jeff King @ 2020-09-09 9:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Derrick Stolee; +Cc: René Scharfe, Edmundo Carmona Antoranz, whydoubt, git On Tue, Sep 08, 2020 at 03:07:34PM -0400, Derrick Stolee wrote: > This message could also mention 14438c4 (introduce hasheq() and > oideq(), 2018-08-28) which introduced oideq(). > > This use of !oidcmp() was introduced by 0906ac2b (blame: use > changed-path Bloom filters, 2020-04-16). My bad. There is no > good reason to introduce this use since it is well after the > oideq() method was introduced. > > > @@ -1353,8 +1353,8 @@ static struct blame_origin *find_origin(struct repository *r, > > else { > > int compute_diff = 1; > > if (origin->commit->parents && > > - !oidcmp(&parent->object.oid, > > - &origin->commit->parents->item->object.oid)) > > + oideq(&parent->object.oid, > > + &origin->commit->parents->item->object.oid)) > > compute_diff = maybe_changed_path(r, origin, bd); > > The code itself looks correct. Yeah, it looks obviously correct. I am puzzled why "make coccicheck" doesn't find this, though. +cc René, as my favorite target for coccinelle nerd-snipes. :) (But clearly we should make the change with or without figuring out the coccinelle part). -Peff ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] blame.c: replace instance of !oidcmp for oideq 2020-09-09 9:11 ` Jeff King @ 2020-09-09 14:00 ` Edmundo Carmona Antoranz 2020-09-09 17:48 ` Jeff Smith 2020-09-09 19:13 ` Jeff King 0 siblings, 2 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: Edmundo Carmona Antoranz @ 2020-09-09 14:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jeff King; +Cc: Derrick Stolee, René Scharfe, whydoubt, Git List On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 3:11 AM Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote: > > Yeah, it looks obviously correct. I am puzzled why "make coccicheck" > doesn't find this, though. +cc René, as my favorite target for > coccinelle nerd-snipes. :) > I added this to contrib/coccinelle/object_id.cocci in v2.27.0 @@ identifier f != oideq; expression E1, E2; @@ - !oidcmp(E1, E2) + oideq(E1, E2) And it found it: $ cat contrib/coccinelle/object_id.cocci.patch diff -u -p a/blame.c b/blame.c --- a/blame.c +++ b/blame.c @@ -1352,8 +1352,7 @@ static struct blame_origin *find_origin( else { int compute_diff = 1; if (origin->commit->parents && - !oidcmp(&parent->object.oid, - &origin->commit->parents->item->object.oid)) + oideq(&parent->object.oid, &origin->commit->parents->item->object.oid)) compute_diff = maybe_changed_path(r, origin, bd); if (compute_diff) Do I need to add more things into the coccinelle definition so that it is more restrictive in terms of the expression we are hunting down? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] blame.c: replace instance of !oidcmp for oideq 2020-09-09 14:00 ` Edmundo Carmona Antoranz @ 2020-09-09 17:48 ` Jeff Smith 2020-09-09 19:13 ` Jeff King 1 sibling, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: Jeff Smith @ 2020-09-09 17:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Edmundo Carmona Antoranz Cc: Jeff King, Derrick Stolee, René Scharfe, Git List I haven't had a chance to look at the cocci script, but I did have one thought... Derrick pointed out, 14438c4 added both oideq and hasheq. It might be good to have a similar check for hasheq, if there is not one already. On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 9:01 AM Edmundo Carmona Antoranz <eantoranz@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 3:11 AM Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote: > > > > Yeah, it looks obviously correct. I am puzzled why "make coccicheck" > > doesn't find this, though. +cc René, as my favorite target for > > coccinelle nerd-snipes. :) > > > > I added this to contrib/coccinelle/object_id.cocci in v2.27.0 > > @@ > identifier f != oideq; > expression E1, E2; > @@ > - !oidcmp(E1, E2) > + oideq(E1, E2) > > And it found it: > > $ cat contrib/coccinelle/object_id.cocci.patch > diff -u -p a/blame.c b/blame.c > --- a/blame.c > +++ b/blame.c > @@ -1352,8 +1352,7 @@ static struct blame_origin *find_origin( > else { > int compute_diff = 1; > if (origin->commit->parents && > - !oidcmp(&parent->object.oid, > - &origin->commit->parents->item->object.oid)) > + oideq(&parent->object.oid, > &origin->commit->parents->item->object.oid)) > compute_diff = maybe_changed_path(r, origin, bd); > > if (compute_diff) > > > Do I need to add more things into the coccinelle definition so that it > is more restrictive in terms of the > expression we are hunting down? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] blame.c: replace instance of !oidcmp for oideq 2020-09-09 14:00 ` Edmundo Carmona Antoranz 2020-09-09 17:48 ` Jeff Smith @ 2020-09-09 19:13 ` Jeff King 2020-09-09 19:17 ` Jeff King 2020-09-09 20:43 ` René Scharfe 1 sibling, 2 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: Jeff King @ 2020-09-09 19:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Edmundo Carmona Antoranz Cc: Derrick Stolee, René Scharfe, whydoubt, Git List On Wed, Sep 09, 2020 at 08:00:57AM -0600, Edmundo Carmona Antoranz wrote: > On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 3:11 AM Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote: > > > > Yeah, it looks obviously correct. I am puzzled why "make coccicheck" > > doesn't find this, though. +cc René, as my favorite target for > > coccinelle nerd-snipes. :) > > > > I added this to contrib/coccinelle/object_id.cocci in v2.27.0 > > @@ > identifier f != oideq; > expression E1, E2; > @@ > - !oidcmp(E1, E2) > + oideq(E1, E2) > > And it found it: Interesting. The existing rule is: struct object_id *OIDPTR1; struct object_id *OIDPTR2; @@ - oidcmp(OIDPTR1, OIDPTR2) == 0 + oideq(OIDPTR1, OIDPTR2) The "== 0" part looks like it might be significant, but it's not. Coccinelle knows that "!foo" is the same as "foo == 0" (and you can confirm by tweaking it). The addition of "identifer f != oideq" here isn't necessary (we don't even define an "f" in the semantic patch part). And anyway, we use hasheq() inside oideq(), so no need to override the rule there. So the relevant part is probably that our existing rule specifies the exact type, whereas your rule allows any expression. And indeed, if I do this, it works: diff --git a/contrib/coccinelle/object_id.cocci b/contrib/coccinelle/object_id.cocci index ddf4f22bd7..62a6cee0eb 100644 --- a/contrib/coccinelle/object_id.cocci +++ b/contrib/coccinelle/object_id.cocci @@ -55,8 +55,8 @@ struct object_id OID; + oidcmp(&OID, OIDPTR) @@ -struct object_id *OIDPTR1; -struct object_id *OIDPTR2; +expression OIDPTR1; +expression OIDPTR2; @@ - oidcmp(OIDPTR1, OIDPTR2) == 0 + oideq(OIDPTR1, OIDPTR2) Which really _seems_ like a bug in coccinelle, unless I am missing something. Because both of those parameters look like object_id pointers (and the compiler would be complaining if it were not the case). But I also wonder if giving the specific types in the coccinelle rule is buying us anything. If you passed two void pointers or ints or whatever to !oidcmp(), we'd still want to rewrite it as oideq(). -Peff ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] blame.c: replace instance of !oidcmp for oideq 2020-09-09 19:13 ` Jeff King @ 2020-09-09 19:17 ` Jeff King 2020-09-09 19:54 ` René Scharfe 2020-09-09 20:06 ` Junio C Hamano 2020-09-09 20:43 ` René Scharfe 1 sibling, 2 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: Jeff King @ 2020-09-09 19:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Edmundo Carmona Antoranz Cc: Derrick Stolee, René Scharfe, whydoubt, Git List On Wed, Sep 09, 2020 at 03:13:46PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > Which really _seems_ like a bug in coccinelle, unless I am missing > something. Because both of those parameters look like object_id pointers > (and the compiler would be complaining if it were not the case). But I > also wonder if giving the specific types in the coccinelle rule is > buying us anything. If you passed two void pointers or ints or whatever > to !oidcmp(), we'd still want to rewrite it as oideq(). And indeed, just blindly swapping out "struct object_id" for "expression" in the coccinelle file (patch below), shows another spot that was missed: diff -u -p a/packfile.c b/packfile.c --- a/packfile.c +++ b/packfile.c @@ -735,7 +735,7 @@ struct packed_git *add_packed_git(const p->mtime = st.st_mtime; if (path_len < the_hash_algo->hexsz || get_sha1_hex(path + path_len - the_hash_algo->hexsz, p->hash)) - hashclr(p->hash); + oidclr(p); return p; } Maybe it's worth being looser in our cocci patch definitions. I'm having trouble thinking of a downside... -Peff -- >8 -- Here's the patch to loosen object_id.cocci. Perhaps we'd want to do the same in other files. diff --git a/contrib/coccinelle/object_id.cocci b/contrib/coccinelle/object_id.cocci index ddf4f22bd7..738c60923e 100644 --- a/contrib/coccinelle/object_id.cocci +++ b/contrib/coccinelle/object_id.cocci @@ -1,62 +1,62 @@ @@ -struct object_id OID; +expression OID; @@ - is_null_sha1(OID.hash) + is_null_oid(&OID) @@ -struct object_id *OIDPTR; +expression *OIDPTR; @@ - is_null_sha1(OIDPTR->hash) + is_null_oid(OIDPTR) @@ -struct object_id OID; +expression OID; @@ - hashclr(OID.hash) + oidclr(&OID) @@ identifier f != oidclr; -struct object_id *OIDPTR; +expression *OIDPTR; @@ f(...) {<... - hashclr(OIDPTR->hash) + oidclr(OIDPTR) ...>} @@ -struct object_id OID1, OID2; +expression OID1, OID2; @@ - hashcmp(OID1.hash, OID2.hash) + oidcmp(&OID1, &OID2) @@ identifier f != oidcmp; -struct object_id *OIDPTR1, OIDPTR2; +expression *OIDPTR1, OIDPTR2; @@ f(...) {<... - hashcmp(OIDPTR1->hash, OIDPTR2->hash) + oidcmp(OIDPTR1, OIDPTR2) ...>} @@ -struct object_id *OIDPTR; -struct object_id OID; +expression *OIDPTR; +expression OID; @@ - hashcmp(OIDPTR->hash, OID.hash) + oidcmp(OIDPTR, &OID) @@ -struct object_id *OIDPTR; -struct object_id OID; +expression *OIDPTR; +expression OID; @@ - hashcmp(OID.hash, OIDPTR->hash) + oidcmp(&OID, OIDPTR) @@ -struct object_id *OIDPTR1; -struct object_id *OIDPTR2; +expression OIDPTR1; +expression OIDPTR2; @@ - oidcmp(OIDPTR1, OIDPTR2) == 0 + oideq(OIDPTR1, OIDPTR2) @@ -71,8 +71,8 @@ expression E1, E2; ...>} @@ -struct object_id *OIDPTR1; -struct object_id *OIDPTR2; +expression *OIDPTR1; +expression *OIDPTR2; @@ - oidcmp(OIDPTR1, OIDPTR2) != 0 + !oideq(OIDPTR1, OIDPTR2) ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] blame.c: replace instance of !oidcmp for oideq 2020-09-09 19:17 ` Jeff King @ 2020-09-09 19:54 ` René Scharfe 2020-09-09 19:58 ` Jeff King 2020-09-09 20:03 ` Junio C Hamano 2020-09-09 20:06 ` Junio C Hamano 1 sibling, 2 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: René Scharfe @ 2020-09-09 19:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jeff King, Edmundo Carmona Antoranz; +Cc: Derrick Stolee, whydoubt, Git List Am 09.09.20 um 21:17 schrieb Jeff King: > On Wed, Sep 09, 2020 at 03:13:46PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > >> Which really _seems_ like a bug in coccinelle, unless I am missing >> something. Because both of those parameters look like object_id pointers >> (and the compiler would be complaining if it were not the case). But I >> also wonder if giving the specific types in the coccinelle rule is >> buying us anything. If you passed two void pointers or ints or whatever >> to !oidcmp(), we'd still want to rewrite it as oideq(). Right, using expressions for such a like-for-like transformation is safe and practical in the sense that it won't break correct code, and broken code will be flagged by the compiler. > > And indeed, just blindly swapping out "struct object_id" for > "expression" in the coccinelle file (patch below), shows another spot > that was missed: > > diff -u -p a/packfile.c b/packfile.c > --- a/packfile.c > +++ b/packfile.c > @@ -735,7 +735,7 @@ struct packed_git *add_packed_git(const > p->mtime = st.st_mtime; > if (path_len < the_hash_algo->hexsz || > get_sha1_hex(path + path_len - the_hash_algo->hexsz, p->hash)) > - hashclr(p->hash); > + oidclr(p); > return p; > } > > > Maybe it's worth being looser in our cocci patch definitions. I'm having > trouble thinking of a downside... For transformations that change the type as in the example above we should insist on getting the right one, otherwise we might introduce bugs -- like in the example above. p points to a struct packed_git and not to a struct object_id, so this introduces a type mismatch. We better make sure our semantic patches are safe, otherwise we have to check all conversions very carefully, and then we might be better off doing them manually.. René ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] blame.c: replace instance of !oidcmp for oideq 2020-09-09 19:54 ` René Scharfe @ 2020-09-09 19:58 ` Jeff King 2020-09-09 20:03 ` Junio C Hamano 1 sibling, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: Jeff King @ 2020-09-09 19:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: René Scharfe Cc: Edmundo Carmona Antoranz, Derrick Stolee, whydoubt, Git List On Wed, Sep 09, 2020 at 09:54:55PM +0200, René Scharfe wrote: > > diff -u -p a/packfile.c b/packfile.c > > --- a/packfile.c > > +++ b/packfile.c > > @@ -735,7 +735,7 @@ struct packed_git *add_packed_git(const > > p->mtime = st.st_mtime; > > if (path_len < the_hash_algo->hexsz || > > get_sha1_hex(path + path_len - the_hash_algo->hexsz, p->hash)) > > - hashclr(p->hash); > > + oidclr(p); > > return p; > > } > > > > > > Maybe it's worth being looser in our cocci patch definitions. I'm having > > trouble thinking of a downside... > > For transformations that change the type as in the example above we > should insist on getting the right one, otherwise we might introduce > bugs -- like in the example above. p points to a struct packed_git and > not to a struct object_id, so this introduces a type mismatch. Heh. You'd think that I would have applied that patch and run "make". Or even read it carefully. Thanks for pointing that out. I guess now we have a real example of a downside (the compiler _would_ still catch it, but it means "make coccicheck" is useless if it's repeatedly suggesting a bad transformation). -Peff ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] blame.c: replace instance of !oidcmp for oideq 2020-09-09 19:54 ` René Scharfe 2020-09-09 19:58 ` Jeff King @ 2020-09-09 20:03 ` Junio C Hamano 1 sibling, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: Junio C Hamano @ 2020-09-09 20:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: René Scharfe Cc: Jeff King, Edmundo Carmona Antoranz, Derrick Stolee, whydoubt, Git List René Scharfe <l.s.r@web.de> writes: >> diff -u -p a/packfile.c b/packfile.c >> --- a/packfile.c >> +++ b/packfile.c >> @@ -735,7 +735,7 @@ struct packed_git *add_packed_git(const >> p->mtime = st.st_mtime; >> if (path_len < the_hash_algo->hexsz || >> get_sha1_hex(path + path_len - the_hash_algo->hexsz, p->hash)) >> - hashclr(p->hash); >> + oidclr(p); >> return p; >> } >> >> >> Maybe it's worth being looser in our cocci patch definitions. I'm having >> trouble thinking of a downside... > > For transformations that change the type as in the example above we > should insist on getting the right one, otherwise we might introduce > bugs -- like in the example above. p points to a struct packed_git and > not to a struct object_id, so this introduces a type mismatch. ;-) A good counter-example. > We better make sure our semantic patches are safe, otherwise we have to > check all conversions very carefully, and then we might be better off > doing them manually.. Yes, that is a sensible suggestion. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] blame.c: replace instance of !oidcmp for oideq 2020-09-09 19:17 ` Jeff King 2020-09-09 19:54 ` René Scharfe @ 2020-09-09 20:06 ` Junio C Hamano 1 sibling, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: Junio C Hamano @ 2020-09-09 20:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jeff King Cc: Edmundo Carmona Antoranz, Derrick Stolee, René Scharfe, whydoubt, Git List Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes: > @@ > -struct object_id *OIDPTR1; > -struct object_id *OIDPTR2; > +expression OIDPTR1; > +expression OIDPTR2; > @@ > - oidcmp(OIDPTR1, OIDPTR2) == 0 > + oideq(OIDPTR1, OIDPTR2) > @@ -71,8 +71,8 @@ expression E1, E2; > ...>} > > @@ > -struct object_id *OIDPTR1; > -struct object_id *OIDPTR2; > +expression *OIDPTR1; > +expression *OIDPTR2; > @@ > - oidcmp(OIDPTR1, OIDPTR2) != 0 > + !oideq(OIDPTR1, OIDPTR2) With an extra insight from the counter-example Réne pointed out in your message, I think the above two are safe but all the others are unsafe. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] blame.c: replace instance of !oidcmp for oideq 2020-09-09 19:13 ` Jeff King 2020-09-09 19:17 ` Jeff King @ 2020-09-09 20:43 ` René Scharfe 1 sibling, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: René Scharfe @ 2020-09-09 20:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jeff King, Edmundo Carmona Antoranz; +Cc: Derrick Stolee, whydoubt, Git List Am 09.09.20 um 21:13 schrieb Jeff King: > On Wed, Sep 09, 2020 at 08:00:57AM -0600, Edmundo Carmona Antoranz wrote: > >> On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 3:11 AM Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote: >>> >>> Yeah, it looks obviously correct. I am puzzled why "make coccicheck" >>> doesn't find this, though. +cc René, as my favorite target for >>> coccinelle nerd-snipes. :) >>> >> >> I added this to contrib/coccinelle/object_id.cocci in v2.27.0 >> >> @@ >> identifier f != oideq; >> expression E1, E2; >> @@ >> - !oidcmp(E1, E2) >> + oideq(E1, E2) >> >> And it found it: > > Interesting. The existing rule is: > > struct object_id *OIDPTR1; > struct object_id *OIDPTR2; > @@ > - oidcmp(OIDPTR1, OIDPTR2) == 0 > + oideq(OIDPTR1, OIDPTR2) > > The "== 0" part looks like it might be significant, but it's not. > Coccinelle knows that "!foo" is the same as "foo == 0" (and you can > confirm by tweaking it). It is significant in the sense that "x == 0" in the semantic patch also matches "!x" in the code, but "!x" in the semantic patch doesn't match "x == 0". That's because coccinelle has this isomorphism built in (in /usr/lib/coccinelle/standard.iso on my machine): Expression @ not_int1 @ int X; @@ !X => X == 0 It's a one-way isomorphism (i.e. a rule that says that certain expressions have the same meaning). So we should use "x == 0" over "!x" in semantic patches to cover both cases. > So the relevant part is probably that our existing rule specifies the > exact type, whereas your rule allows any expression. > > And indeed, if I do this, it works: > > diff --git a/contrib/coccinelle/object_id.cocci b/contrib/coccinelle/object_id.cocci > index ddf4f22bd7..62a6cee0eb 100644 > --- a/contrib/coccinelle/object_id.cocci > +++ b/contrib/coccinelle/object_id.cocci > @@ -55,8 +55,8 @@ struct object_id OID; > + oidcmp(&OID, OIDPTR) > > @@ > -struct object_id *OIDPTR1; > -struct object_id *OIDPTR2; > +expression OIDPTR1; > +expression OIDPTR2; > @@ > - oidcmp(OIDPTR1, OIDPTR2) == 0 > + oideq(OIDPTR1, OIDPTR2) > > Which really _seems_ like a bug in coccinelle, unless I am missing > something. Because both of those parameters look like object_id pointers > (and the compiler would be complaining if it were not the case). Yes, seems it looks like coccinelle gives up trying to determine the type of these things. And while this one here matches the example in blame.c: @@ expression A, B; @@ - 0 == oidcmp(A, B) + oideq(A, B) ... and this one does as well: @@ expression A, B; @@ - !oidcmp + oideq (A, B) ... the following one doesn't: @@ expression A, B; @@ - 0 == oidcmp + oideq (A, B) ... and neither does this one: @@ expression A, B; @@ - oidcmp + oideq (A, B) - == 0 So it helps to try some variants in the hope to bypass some of the restrictions/bugs/misunderstandings. O_o René ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2020-09-09 20:43 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 14+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2020-09-07 17:16 [PATCH] blame.c: replace instance of !oidcmp for oideq Edmundo Carmona Antoranz 2020-09-07 17:21 ` Edmundo Carmona Antoranz 2020-09-08 13:55 ` Edmundo Carmona Antoranz 2020-09-08 19:07 ` Derrick Stolee 2020-09-09 9:11 ` Jeff King 2020-09-09 14:00 ` Edmundo Carmona Antoranz 2020-09-09 17:48 ` Jeff Smith 2020-09-09 19:13 ` Jeff King 2020-09-09 19:17 ` Jeff King 2020-09-09 19:54 ` René Scharfe 2020-09-09 19:58 ` Jeff King 2020-09-09 20:03 ` Junio C Hamano 2020-09-09 20:06 ` Junio C Hamano 2020-09-09 20:43 ` René Scharfe
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).