Messages in this thread | | | From | Denis Efremov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] coccinelle: misc: add array_size_dup script to detect missed overflow checks | Date | Thu, 18 Jun 2020 15:24:39 +0300 |
| |
Hi,
On 6/18/20 2:34 PM, Markus Elfring wrote: > Why did you repeat a typo from the previous patch subject?
Where is the typo? I can't handle your suggestions because your mails constantly break the threads. I just can't find them after due to missed/wrong In-Reply-To headers. Again, this mail doesn't contain In-Reply-To header and highly likely I will miss it when I will prepare next version of the patch.
>> +expression subE1 <= as.E1; >> +expression subE2 <= as.E2; >> +expression as.E1, as.E2, E3; > > How do you think about to use the following SmPL code variant? > > expression subE1 <= as.E1, subE2 <= as.E2, as.E1, as.E2, E3;
It's less readable and harder to review.
> >> + when != \(&E1\|&E2\|&subE1\|&subE2\) > > I suggest to move the ampersand before the disjunction in such > SmPL code exclusion specifications. > > + when != & \(E1 \| E2 \| subE1 \| subE2\)
Ok, I will fix this if there will be next version.
> > >> +coccilib.report.print_report(p2[0], >> +f"WARNING: array_size is already used (line {p1[0].line}) to compute \ >> +the same size") > > I would prefer an other code formatting at such places. > > +coccilib.report.print_report(p2[0], > + f"WARNING: array_size is already used (line {p1[0].line}) to compute the same size.") >
No. It's pointless to break the line to save 5 chars this way.
I can use instead:
coccilib.report.print_report(p2[0], f"WARNING: array_size is already used (line {p1[0].line}) to compute the same size")
or
msg = f"WARNING: array_size is already used (line {p1[0].line}) to compute the same size" coccilib.report.print_report(p2[0], msg)
or
coccilib.report.print_report(p2[0], f"WARNING: array_size is already used (line {p1[0].line}) to compute the same size")
And I prefer the last one if Julia will allow me to use more than 80 chars in print string.
Thanks, Denis
| |