On Fri, 30 Mar 2018, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-03-29 at 21:03 +0530, Varsha Rao wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 11:41 PM, Joe Perches wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 2018-03-28 at 23:27, Varsha Rao wrote: > > > > This patch fixes the clang warning of extraneous parentheses, with the > > > > following coccinelle script. > > > > > > > > @@ > > > > identifier i; > > > > constant c; > > > > @@ > > > > ( > > > > -((i == c)) > > > > +i == c > > > > > > > > > > > > > -((i <= c)) > > > > +i <= c > > > > > > Why just the "==" and "<=" cases? > > > Why not "<", ">" and ">=" too? > > > > > > Why not expression instead of constant? > > > > Initially I had the other cases too and used expression instead of > > constant. But the results included only "==" and "<=" cases with > > constant. Along with one false positive case. > hmm > Perhaps you should use something like this? > @@ > identifier i; > constant c; > @@ > > -( > \(i == c\|i <= c\|i < c\|i >= c\|i > c\) > -) This is not safe with respect to !. The following seems to address this problem: @@ identifier i; constant c; expression e; @@ ( !(e) | -( \(i == c\|i <= c\|i < c\|i >= c\|i > c\) -) ) julia
