> I hope that it can become easier to clarify where unexpected duplicate keys
> would occur as in my test approach.

There is the possibility to apply information according to a clarification
request on a topic like “Checking the handling of unique keys/indexes”
from 2014-12-20.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sqlalchemy/klmUwiirIQw/g6NLiVAGGAIJ


elfring@Sonne:~/Projekte/Linux/next-patched> spatch 
~/Projekte/Coccinelle/janitor/list_condition_checks_after_function_calls2c.cocci
 drivers/gpu/drm/mcde/mcde_drv.c
…
Using SQLAlchemy version:
1.3.15
…
%% function:
mcde_probe
line:
322
%% function:
mcde_probe
line:
403
action|check|"source file"|line|column
…


How should the error reporting be clarified around such source code places?
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.6.3/source/drivers/gpu/drm/mcde/mcde_drv.c#L307
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/gpu/drm/mcde/mcde_drv.c?id=8f3d9f354286745c751374f5f1fcafee6b3f3136#n308


I observe that the following SmPL code variant can result also in
a significant difference.

@find@
expression action, check, result;
position p;
statement is, es;
@@
 result = action(...);
 if (
(   <+... result ...+>
&   check@p
)   )
    is
 else
    es


How will the application of SmPL conjunctions evolve further?

Regards,
Markus
_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci

Reply via email to