Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 9 Dec 2012 15:51:14 -0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] scripts/coccinelle/misc/semicolon.cocci: Add unneeded semicolon test | From | Peter Senna Tschudin <> |
| |
On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote: > On Sat, 2012-12-08 at 16:13 -0200, Peter Senna Tschudin wrote: >> On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote: >> > On Sat, 2012-12-08 at 15:34 -0200, Peter Senna Tschudin wrote: >> >> This semantic patch looks for semicolons that can be removed without >> >> changing the semantics of the code. The confidence is moderate >> >> because there are some false positives on cases like: >> >> >> >> b/drivers/mmc/host/cb710-mmc.c:589 >> >> break; >> >> case MMC_POWER_UP: >> >> default: >> >> - /* ignore */; >> >> } >> > [] >> >> diff --git a/scripts/coccinelle/misc/semicolon.cocci b/scripts/coccinelle/misc/semicolon.cocci >> > [] >> >> +@r1@ >> >> +statement S; >> >> +position p1; >> >> +position p != {r_default.p, r_case.p}; >> >> +identifier label; >> >> +@@ >> >> +( >> >> +label:; >> >> +| >> >> +S@p1;@p >> >> +) >> >> + >> > >> > I believe this also fails on this case: > [] >> > where gcc needs a semicolon after a label before a function exit. >> >> No it does not fail. This issue is switch/case specific. See how I've tested: > > Thanks Peter, I didn't notice the switch requirement. > > In this case, I'd suggest replacement of the > nominally false positive ; with break;
I agree with you that the best is to replace ; with break; but I prefer to not change the unneeded semicolon test semantic patch to add breaks before ;. I can make other semantic patch for that. The point is that adding break is more than detecting unneeded semicolons, so I prefer to not mix the two.
But even with the moderate confidence this semantic patch seems to be useful as new unneeded semicolons are being added to the Kernel.
> > cheers, Joe >
Thanks for your help!
Peter
-- Peter
| |