Hi, Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakki...@linux.intel.com> writes: > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:54:07AM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: >> >> >> On Sun, 11 Sep 2016, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: >> >> > On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 03:05:42PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: >> > > Constify local structures. >> > > >> > > The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows: >> > > (http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/) >> > >> > Just my two cents but: >> > >> > 1. You *can* use a static analysis too to find bugs or other issues. >> > 2. However, you should manually do the commits and proper commit >> > messages to subsystems based on your findings. And I generally think >> > that if one contributes code one should also at least smoke test changes >> > somehow. >> > >> > I don't know if I'm alone with my opinion. I just think that one should >> > also do the analysis part and not blindly create and submit patches. >> >> All of the patches are compile tested. And the individual patches are > > Compile-testing is not testing. If you are not able to test a commit, > you should explain why.
Dude, Julia has been doing semantic patching for years already and nobody has raised any concerns so far. There's already an expectation that Coccinelle *works* and Julia's sematic patches are sound. Besides, adding 'const' is something that causes virtually no functional changes to the point that build-testing is really all you need. Any problems caused by adding 'const' to a definition will be seen by build errors or warnings. Really, just stop with the pointless discussion and go read a bit about Coccinelle and what semantic patches are giving you. The work done by Julia and her peers are INRIA have measurable benefits. You're really making a thunderstorm in a glass of water. -- balbi
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
