> +/// Notations !unlikely(x) and !likely(x) are confusing. I am curious if more software developers will share their views around these likeliness annotations.
* How much does the scope matter for expressions? * Are different coding style preferences involved? > +//---------------------------------------------------------- > +// For context mode > +//---------------------------------------------------------- > + > +@depends on context disable unlikely@ I wonder about the need for such a comment when the specification of SmPL rule dependencies should be sufficient. > +@depends on patch disable unlikely@ > +expression E; > +@@ > + > +( > +-!likely(!E) > ++unlikely(E) > +| > +-!likely(E) > ++unlikely(!E) > +| > +-!unlikely(!E) > ++likely(E) > +| > +-!unlikely(E) > ++likely(!E) > +) Will another variant for the change specification with the semantic patch language influence corresponding readability concerns? +@replacement depends on patch disable unlikely@ +expression x; +@@ +-! +( +( +-unlikely ++likely +| +-likely ++unlikely +) + ( +- ! + x + ) +| +( +-unlikely ++likely +| +-likely ++unlikely +) + ( ++ ! + x + ) +) Can the use of nested SmPL disjunctions help here together with an other SmPL code formatting? Regards, Markus _______________________________________________ Cocci mailing list [email protected] https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
