Hmm, I do get more unused variable warnings than expected. I will have to look into it.
julia On Sun, 31 May 2015, Julia Lawall wrote: > I propose the extended version below (not currently coccicheck friendly). > the extra features are: > > 1. The original version requires i1 and i2 to be identifiers, eg x and y. > This doesn't address the case where they are terms line x->a or x[b]. The > fact that the original code contains assignments with both i1 and i2 on > the left hand side is enough to ensure that they are appropriate arguments > for swap. So they can be changed to expression metavariables. > > 2. The original patch rule always removed the tmp variable. This is not > valid if the tmp variable is used for something else. The new semantic > patch separates the introduction of swap (rule r) from the removal of the > variable declaration (rule ok and the one folowing). The rule ok checks > that this is a function containing an introduced call to swap, and then > the rule after removes the declaration if the variable is not used for > anything else. Note that the name of the tmp variable is remembered in > the invalid three-argument version of sawp. This is then cleaned up in > the rule below. > > 3. The original patch always removed the initialization of the tmp > variable. Actually, some code uses the tmp variable afterwards to refer > to the old value. In the new semantic patch, the first set of rules > considers the cases where the tmp variable is not used, and the last rule > is for the case where the tmp variable is stll needed. No cleaning up of > the declaration is needed in that case. > > There is one regression as compared to the original semantic patch: In the > file lib/mpi/mpi-pow.c, the temporary variable is not needed after the > change, but it is also not removed. It is declared within a loop, and > Coccinelle does not realize that it is not needed afterwards, because it > is needed on subsequent loop iterations. Trying to adjust the semantic > patch to address this issue made it much slower and didn't fix the > problem. Perhaps it is easier to rely on gcc to give an unused variable > warning, and to clean it up then. > > Fabian, if you are o with this, do you want to sgenify it ans submit a new > patch? > > thanks, > julia > > // it may be possible to remove the tmp variable > > @r@ > expression i1, i2, E; > identifier tmp; > @@ > > - tmp = i1; > - i1 = i2; > - i2 = tmp; > + swap(i1, i2, tmp); > ... when != tmp > ? tmp = E > > @ok exists@ > type t1; > identifier r.tmp; > expression i1,i2; > position p; > @@ > > t1@p tmp; > ... > swap(i1, i2, tmp); > > @@ > expression i1,i2; > identifier tmp; > type t1; > position ok.p; > @@ > > -t1@p tmp; > <... when strict > when != tmp > swap(i1, i2, tmp); > ...> > > @depends on r@ > expression i1,i2; > identifier tmp; > @@ > > swap(i1,i2 > - ,tmp > ) > > // tmp variable still needed > > @@ > expression i1, i2; > identifier tmp; > @@ > > tmp = i1; > - i1 = i2; > - i2 = tmp; > + swap(i1, i2); > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
