Hello,
I have tried another simple script out for the semantic patch language.
@deletion@
identifier x;
type t;
@@
-t x;
... when != x
elfring@Sonne:~/Projekte/Linux/next-patched> spatch
~/Projekte/Coccinelle/Probe/delete_unused_variable1.cocci init/main.c
…
@@ -101,22 +101,6 @@
#define CR
Hello,
Some software evolution happened since the technology “computation tree logic
with variables and witnesses” was published by the document “A Foundation for
Flow-Based Program Matching Using Temporal Logic and Model Checking”.
http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/papers/popl09.pdf
https://doi.org/10.11
> It would be helpful to me to have a list of some things that Coccinelle
> has recently been used for.
Are you looking for use cases and corresponding software applications
which have not been discussed on this mailing list before?
Did you try any internet searches out for development topics lik
> The below spatch works for me - and finds the cases I was looking
> for in report mode.
This is nice.
> In patch mode it fixes some in a bad way though due to some additional "bugs"
> in the if statement like:
…
> - if ((notify->event = event), event->refs) {
> + (notify->event = e
> Can you shed some light?
Did you notice the following information in the manual for the semantic
patch language?
https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/blob/dd206b29bf372a8f8e63ffe549f8184e10f2ea7e/docs/manual/cocci_syntax.tex#L1607
“…
All matching done by a SmPL rule is done intraprocedurall
>> How do you think about to try the following SmPL script variant out?
>>
>> @replacement@
>> @@
>> -const
>> +__genl_const
>> struct
>> (
>> genl_multicast_group
>> |genl_ops
>> )
>
> This is rejected by the semantic patch parser.
Can my update suggestion make sense if the parsing software
wi
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/backports/backports.git/tree/patches/0027-genl-const/genl-const.cocci
How do you think about to try the following SmPL script variant out?
@replacement@
@@
-const
+__genl_const
struct
(
genl_multicast_group
|genl_ops
)
Regards,
Markus
>> @rule1@
>> expression x;
>> expression list y;
>> @@
>> -DBG_PRINTF
>> +NV_PRINTF
>> (
>> - (x),
>> y);
>
> This doesn't work:
Do you care if a macro (or function) parameter is optionally enclosed by
parentheses?
> - DBG_PRINTF((DBG_MODULE_OS, DEBUGLEV
> Attached.
I have taken this transformation approach as an opportunity to take another look
at implementation details for further software development considerations.
@rule1@
expression x;
expression list y;
@@
-DBG_PRINTF
+NV_PRINTF
(
- (x),
y);
You repeated add
> @script:python s@
> c << r.c;
> c2;
> @@
> if c.startswith('"NVRM: '):
> coccinelle.c2 = '"' + c[7:];
> else:
> coccinelle.c2 = c;
I have got another software development idea for this transformation approach.
The detection of unwanted prefixes could be moved into a regular expression
li
> @script:python s@
> c << r.c;
> c2;
> @@
> if c.startswith('"NVRM: '):
> coccinelle.c2 = '"' + c[7:];
> else:
>coccinelle.c2 = c;
I suggest to reconsider the action if no modification should be performed
finally.
How do you think about to use the statement “cocci.include_match(False)”
i
Hello,
I would like to clarify another combination of functionality from the semantic
patch language.
The following small SmPL script can be constructed to find some function calls.
@rtg@
identifier F, G;
@@
F(..., 9);
*G(1, ...);
@rth@
identifier F, H;
@@
F(..., 9);
*H(2, ...);
The importan
> I've been doing some large treewide changes to the allocators,
I find your update suggestion “mm: Use overflow helpers in kmalloc_array*()”
interesting.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/5/31/877
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10442283/
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/<20180601004233.37822-7-keesc...@c
Hello,
The following script for the semantic patch language can mark a bit of source
code also in a corresponding example.
@display@
constant C;
expression A, B;
identifier X;
type T;
@@
T X = A
<<
*C
<<
B;
int main(void)
{
unsigned int a = 2, b = 4;
unsigned long c = a << 2 << b;
}
1. I
Hello,
I would like to try another source code transformation out with the help of
the semantic patch language.
@addition@
identifier var;
type T;
@@
T
+const
* var;
elfring@Sonne:~/Projekte/Coccinelle/janitor> spatch --parse-cocci
add_const3.cocci
init_defs_builtins: /usr/local/bin/../lib/c
Hello,
I would like to try another source code transformation out with the help of
the semantic patch language.
The following approach can express a bit of information I became interested in.
{
... when any
when != action(..., input, ...)
}
Now I am looking for ways to restrict (or filt
Hello,
The information “make a small attempt to parse C++ files” is provided for
the parameter “--c++” of the program “spatch”.
How does the software development situation look like for the handling
of “delete expressions”?
http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/delete
Regards,
Markus
>How should the execution of each SmPL rule be identified there?
Can the following source code adjustment help a bit besides the general
possibility
to clarify additional data export formats?
diff --git a/cocci.ml b/cocci.ml
index 64503ee9..43cfc996 100644
--- a/cocci.ml
+++ b/cocci.ml
@@ -1
> I find the corresponding description improvable for the provided data.
How can it be achieved that the execution of SmPL rules will be measured also
for supported scripting languages?
Will it be appropriate to execute these places by the function
“Common.profile_code”?
Regards,
Markus
___
Hello,
The Coccinelle software can display profiling results for the execution
of SmPL scripts. The measured durations are formatted in a way so that
the information “0.000 sec” is presented for some functions so far.
I guess that these data processing efforts were performed with a non-zero
time v
Hello,
The Coccinelle software supports profiling for the execution of SmPL scripts
to some degree.
I find the corresponding description improvable for the provided data.
1. I would find an other separation for the available columns nicer.
2. I suggest to add a column “area” so that the measured
Hello,
A specific function can be found also by a selection on its parameter list.
The semantic patch language provides a metavariable type for this purpose.
I would occasionally like to create another function variant then.
It should get a shorter parameter list with a few elements from the othe
>> I have noticed a moment ago that a blank line is not marked by the SmPL
>> asterisk operator (for a small source code example) so far.
>>
>> Can such whitespace characters be also preserved there anyhow?
>
> No. Whitespace is never preserved in metavariables.
I guess that this aspect will tri
>> It would be occasionally nice if an implementation of a function could be
>> completely stored into a metavariable.
>> Is a statement list variable appropriate for this use case?
>
> Yes.
Thanks for your acknowledgement that it should usually work.
I have noticed a moment ago that a blank li
Hello,
I am curious on how good the Coccinelle software can support a specific
source code transformation:
It would be occasionally nice if an implementation of a function could be
completely stored into a metavariable.
Is a statement list variable appropriate for this use case?
Can these data be
> We can try to make the parsing of #pragmas more flexible.
I am also curious on further software evolution in this area for a while.
https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/issues/51
Regards,
Markus
___
Cocci mailing list
Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
https:/
Hello,
I have noticed a moment ago that a few additional commits were published.
It might be nice to test this development a bit more.
I submitted the command “make distclean” and built the software by the
command “./autogen && ./configure && make world” as usual.
But I wonder about the message “
Hello,
I am working with the following specification in some scripts for the semantic
patch language.
…
target = action(...);
…
This source code search pattern shows that a return value from a function call
should be stored somewhere. The concrete call is restricted by a selection of
function
>> Which parameters should be passed to the selected function?
>
> You can always pass the declared metavariable.
I have got special imaginations for convenient parameter passing
in such an use case.
> You can put a comma-separated list of inherited metavariables
Do you suggest that a dependen
Hello,
Constraints can be specified for metavariables of the semantic patch language.
I noticed that they can trigger software maintenance challenges
when bigger specifications are repeated in some SmPL rules.
Now I am looking again for further possibilities to avoid corresponding
code duplication
> I removed the blank line at EOF,
> then applied to linux-kbuild/misc.
I have taken another look at this script for the semantic patch language.
I imagined that I could refactor the shown SmPL disjunctions a bit.
But I noticed then that these SmPL rules contain a development mistake.
The deletio
> +// Copyright: (C) 2017 Himanshu Jha GPLv2.
* Is the addition “(C)” required?
* Does the year number need an update?
My software development attention was caught by further implementation details
in this evolving SmPL script.
> +@depends on context && r1@
Will the use of a position variabl
> Look at the script code just under the comment "For context mode" and just
> under the comment "For patch mode". Both of them use m.
I would like to apologise that I overlooked these places somehow.
> __ are typically used in sparse annotations.
Is this search pattern worth for a correspondi
> Well, you didn't keep the semantic patch in the message.
You can take another look in other information systems (if desired).
https://systeme.lip6.fr/pipermail/cocci/2018-January/004848.html
>> How do you think about to avoid the extra initialisation
>> when only the operation mode “context” o
>>> +@initialize:python@
>>
>> The added script rule should get a condition.
>> Would the specification “depends on report” be appropriate there?
>
> To my recollection,
I wonder about this wording …
> which is defined in the initialized is used in all of the cases,
I imagine that you could kn
My software development attention was caught by another implementation detail
in this evolving SmPL script.
> +@initialize:python@
The added script rule should get a condition.
Would the specification “depends on report” be appropriate there?
Regards,
Markus
___
> Add more memory allocating functions that are frequently used in the kernel
> code to the existing list and remove the useless casts where it is
> unnecessary.
Thanks for your approach to extend this SmPL script.
I would find the term “selection” more appropriate than the word “list” here.
>
> Rename kzalloc-simple to zalloc-simple since now the rule is not
> specific to kzalloc function only, but also to many other zero memory
> allocating functions specified in the rule.
1. Please add the tag “Suggested-by” to the commit description.
See also:
Rename the SmPL script “kzalloc-
> Well, I was thinking that you could eg make a script like:
>
> @script:ocaml@
> e << r.e;
> @@
>
> Printf.printf "@@\n";
> Printf.printf "expression f;\n";
> Printf.printf "@@\n\n";
> Printf.printf "-f(%s);\n" e
I would prefer to use the available programming languages directly
instead of star
> The simplest thing would be to just print the rule you want in a
> python/ocaml script rule.
I would like to adjust a SmPL execution environment for special use cases
somehow.
How would “printing” be useful here?
> Some support was added at one point for generating rules based on matches
> fr
Hello,
Is it possible to generate additional rules for a specific execution environment
of the semantic patch language by an advanced script rule?
Can a special rule generation be avoided from external software tools?
Regards,
Markus
___
Cocci mailing
> I do feel confident that the benefits of python for this outweighs the
> drawbacks
> compared to my initial shell script implementation, or using perl or even C.
>
> Further advice on this appreciated,
I got further ideas around this software situation. I am curious on how they fit
to your visi
> As I commented to you, some of it is a bit more in the class of good
> enhancements
> so whatever I haven't changed now that resonated with me,
I find that some information could be better integrated already now.
> I'll pick up later if the general idea is accepted.
I am curious on how the
> +Supported syntax of …
Did you change the mind since your response “Good idea, will do” on 2017-12-23?
https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/7bd67f980fdf33031c54955f7e04b435c267886e#r26449420
> +The ``line_len`` directive defines the upper bound of characters per line
> +tolerated in this d
Dear Knut,
You chose to offer a cover letter for software adjustments which are contained
in a single update step.
How do you think about to integrate this information in the change log area
of the other message (patch)?
> Version 2 and 1 of this set and related discussion can be found here:
Di
>>> The cast is useful when it is to a non-pointer type.
>>
>> Will it be needed then to use an other metavariable for the assignment
>> target?
>>
>> How much would you like to distinguish if an item should handle a pointer
>> (or not)?
>
> The compiler will complain about an assignment between
> - x = (T)kmalloc(E1,E2);
> + x = (T)kzalloc(E1,E2);
>
> This for useless pointer cast which is done implicitily.
Actually, the above rule is for the case where the cast is useful.
>>
>> * Have you got any special aspects in mind here?
>>
>> * How do you think about to re
>>> - x = (T)kmalloc(E1,E2);
>>> + x = (T)kzalloc(E1,E2);
>>>
>>> This for useless pointer cast which is done implicitily.
>>
>> Actually, the above rule is for the case where the cast is useful.
* Have you got any special aspects in mind here?
* How do you think about to restrict it for pointer
> We already have zero memory allocator functions to set the memory to
> 0 value instead of manually setting it using memset.
Thanks for your extension of this script for the semantic patch language.
Will this update suggestion get any better chances than the approach
“Script to replace allocate
>> @adjustment@
>> expression ex;
>> statement S;
>> @@
>> -LIST_FOR_EACH_ENTRY
>> +hlist_for_each_entry
>> (..., ...,
>> -ex,
>> ...)
>> S
>
> This is not completely a good idea.
I tried to show another approach.
> The ... in the argument list will match a sequence of things, not a single
>> I think I've found a bug in spatch,
You showed another opportunity for further development considerations.
>> or maybe I'm just using it wrong.
Not really.
But the specification in the shown small SmPL script could be adjusted.
>> - LIST_FOR_EACH_ENTRY(c,f,g,member) S
>> + hlist_for_each_
> The goal is that the user can easily find the stdou and stderr information
> while the semantic patch is running.
It matters when the tool “spatch” tries to apply its own parallelisation
strategy.
> This is useful for long running semantic patches to see
> if things are going well or not.
Ye
> Setting NPROC=1 is a reasonable solution;
It can be sufficient for the usual purposes of the shell script
“scripts/coccicheck”.
> spatch does not create the subdirectory.
I would like to point out that further development efforts will be needed
if such a special directory handling should be
>>> I didn't want to use a name with the pid, so that one could easily find
>>> this information while Coccinelle is running.
>>
>> Do you mark these data as “hidden” in the file system?
>
> I don't know what this means.
Do you fiddle with file attributes or use a dot as the first character
in th
> The problem on the Coccinelle side is that it uses a subdirectory with the
> name of the semantic patch to store standard output and standard error for
> the different threads.
It is occasionally good to know such background information.
> I didn't want to use a name with the pid, so that one
>> @section_specification@
>> type T;
>> @@
>> T rcar_pcie_enable_msi(...)
>> + __attribute__((section ("my_update")))
>
> I don't see any evidence that kernel developers would welcome this change
> in this form.
There is no welcome needed by them because the shown addition would be
nice for tes
Hello,
Implementations of various functions will be changed on demand. It can happen
then that you would like to know if the applied changes will result also in
differences for the generated code.
Development tools like “size” can display some information for such a
comparison.
The total size di
>> Which information are you missing from my software surprises?
> You just showed the error that looks similar to mine.
I have tried another rebuild of the current software out.
> You miss the part about how you configured and installed it.
Would you like to take another look at affected imple
> Do what I did:
> Describe the problem in a way that makes it easy to reproduce.
I find that did this already, didn't I?
Which information are you missing from my software surprises?
Regards,
Markus
___
Cocci mailing list
Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
https:/
>> I find that did this already, didn't I?
> No , you didn't.
I can try to repeat some more technical details.
>> Which information are you missing from my software surprises?
> You just showed the error that looks similar to mine.
Yes. - I submitted only a kind of “ping” yesterday.
> You mis
>> Is this software development also relevant for the following error messages?
>>
>> elfring@Sonne:~/Projekte/Linux/next-patched> spatch
>> ~/Projekte/Coccinelle/janitor/….cocci ….c
>> warning: Can't find macro file: /usr/local/bin/../lib/coccinelle/standard.h
>> warning: Can't find default iso f
> Yes, but spatch should have resolved the symlink. Anyway, I changed
> the code to use realpath, which should be more reliable (the code
> before only resolved symlinks on the executable file, without
> considering parent directories).
>
> Sorry for the wrong commit!
Is this software development
Hello,
The following command was executed on my test system again.
elfring@Sonne:~/Projekte/Coccinelle/20160205> make distclean && git checkout
master && git pull && ./autogen && ./configure && echo "$(./version.sh)" &&
grep VERSION=1 Makefile.config
…
1.0.6-00335-g6e5973d4
VERSION=1.0.6-00318-
> The makefile issues are perhaps now resolved.
How much did you check it?
A few implementation details were improved.
Thanks for your software corrections so far.
I find that there are several aspects left over for further considerations.
Examples:
1. How would you like to fix dependencies li
> A number of recent commits have been pushed to github,
It is nice to be informed about another bit of software development.
> including a new make system.
Now I find this kind of description too terse.
> Let us know if any difficulties are encountered.
* Did build targets get lost in the m
> What are you wondering about it?
Was the make script changed in the way that the native executable variant
will not be reinstalled with the suffix “opt” any more?
https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/blob/db8e301e8b28f20149d5edccc996cf6843047f7a/Makefile#L260
Do you find the following com
> A number of recent commits have been pushed to github,
Thanks for your information.
> including a new make system.
Does this indicate a growing interest to clarify remaining (or even recurring)
open issues in such a software area?
> Let us know if any difficulties are encountered.
I commen
>> I wonder also about the information how an ordinary for loop could influence
>> the shown source code analysis result for the function
>> “snd_seq_queue_find_name”
>> when the questionable marked statements are contained in a single if branch.
>> http://elixir.free-electrons.com/linux/v4.13/sou
> Thers is a control-flow path from the bottom of a loop back up to the top.
I wonder also about the information how an ordinary for loop could influence
the shown source code analysis result for the function “snd_seq_queue_find_name”
when the questionable marked statements are contained in a sing
>> But I have got difficulties to interpret it in an useful way.
>
> Coccinelle follows control-flow paths.
This information is generally fine.
> Thers is a control-flow path from the bottom of a loop back up to the top.
I can not follow with my intermediate understanding to such a view
at the
>> Now I wonder why the software “Coccinelle 1.0.6-00242-g3f038a5d” finds
>> this place relevant when the function call sequence does not fit to the order
>> I tried to express for a known use case.
>> I would appreciate further advice.
>
> Because there is a loop,
This information is appropriate
Hello,
I have constructed another small script for the semantic patch language.
@usage@
identifier action, member, release=~"^.+free$";
expression context;
@@
*release(context);
<+...
*action(..., (context)->member, ...)
...+>
The following source code place can be found by such a simple appr
> > Acked-by: Julia Lawall
> Thank you very much Julia!
I find that this acknowledgement could be presented a bit too early.
> What is the correct path to merge this?
It seems that you prefer to ignore some of my technical arguments (or
concerns?).
I hope that a safer source code search app
> Any idea on how to write a cocci script that looks for
> const array declarations and adds static to them only when
> all the initializers of the array are constants?
Yes. - But I imagine that my ideas would not fit to the currently available
Coccinelle software.
How do you think about to suppor
Dear Elena,
I hoped on a more constructive feedback for remaining implementation details
which should be reconsidered once more.
https://systeme.lip6.fr/pipermail/cocci/2017-August/004341.html
* Will any more revisions be needed for your evolving script until special
development concerns will b
> changes in v4:
> …
Do you find this cover letter still relevant for the clarification
of remaining open issues in a single SmPL script?
Regards,
Markus
___
Cocci mailing list
Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
>> I am looking for descriptions about circumstances under which the
>> metavariable combination
>> will be useful by the mentioned SmPL conjunctions.
>
> I still don't understand the question.
It seems that I have got a few understanding difficulties with the added
functionality.
> Another e
> I have no idea what information is wanted.
I am looking for descriptions about circumstances under which the metavariable
combination
will be useful by the mentioned SmPL conjunctions.
Regards,
Markus
___
Cocci mailing list
Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
http
>> I would like to know a bit more for the application of such a metavariable
>> combination.
I would appreciate another feedback for this aspect.
>> Unfortunately, I get the information “… Fatal error occurred, no output PDF
>> file produced! …” from data processing by the command “make docs”.
> @@
> type t;
> identifier i;
> @@
>
> (
> struct i
> &
> t
> )
>
> will now bind both i and t appropriately.
I would like to know a bit more for the application of such a metavariable
combination.
I hoped also to read something about it in the current manual.
Unfortunately, I get the informati
> It is now (github) possible to match and transform a single such attribute
> when it comes after the name of a variable in a variable declaration.
This is a nice extension for your software.
How does this information fit to the wording in the manual?
https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/blo
>> (
>> *setup_timer(&E->_timer@tl, \((_func)\| \) \(&\| \) _callback, \((_data)\|
>> \) E);
>> |
>> *E->_timer@tl.function = \((_func)\| \) \(&\| \) _callback;
>> )
>
> No, it doesn't work, because \( \| \) matches an expression and there is
> no empty expression.
Will the Coccinelle software b
> I had --no-includes in my .cocci.
Would you like to transform also any header files by the mentioned approach?
> More insane corner cases:
Are you looking for further clarification there?
Regards,
Markus
___
Cocci mailing list
Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
>> You try to search for variations of a function call and an assignment to
>> a data structure member. It seems that they differ then by the usage of a
>> cast
>> and the operator “&”.
>> How do you think about to express such search criteria in a succinct way with
>> the help of the semantic pat
> (
> -setup_timer(&_E->_timer@_e, _callback, _E);
> |
…
> -_E->_timer@_e.function = (_cast_func)&_callback;
> )
You try to search for variations of a function call and an assignment to
a data structure member. It seems that they differ then by the usage of a cast
and the operator “&”.
How do you
> More importantly; does Julia like red jelly beans more than blue jelly beans?
Would you like to discuss favourite sweets more than to clarify
further improvements in parsing technology also for application
together with the Coccinelle software? ;-)
Regards,
Markus
> Parsing of foo fails due to the attribute __xxx(yyy) that Coccinelle is
> not able to cope with.
* Do you find information relevant from answers to a question like
“Context-free grammars versus context-sensitive grammars?”?
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/8236422/context-free-grammars-v
> Parsing of foo fails due to the attribute __xxx(yyy) that Coccinelle is
> not able to cope with.
Why does the parsing software struggle with such input data so far?
> Coccinele hopes that expanding macros will solve the problem.
Why do you need to “hope” something if the software could be des
> Actually, I noticed that unfolding macros can sometimes hurt more than it
> helps.
Would you like to discuss (or explain) involved implementation details
and configuration parameters any more?
Regards,
Markus
___
Cocci mailing list
Cocci@systeme.lip6
>> If it's yacc based you can recover where ever you like. Knowing how to
>> do it is something of a black art.
> Well, ocamlyacc, to be precise.
Can the software “Menhir” help any more for the needed data processing?
http://gallium.inria.fr/%7Efpottier/menhir/
Regards,
Markus
_
> I have tried to improve the parsing of C code recently.
This information is useful.
> 1. More aggressive inclusion of header files,
Why do you need to become “aggressive” there when the corresponding
data processing should be just correct?
> combined with caching of header files.
How do y
> At least for the Linux kernel, you can't just run one make and get all the
> files to be compiled. Some files are indeed very hard to compile.
How do you think about to point any specific source code examples out
which you find a bit too challenging so far?
Regards,
Markus
> If you like the results from the second case, what more do you want?
I would like to achieve somehow that the number of presented “false positives”
will become so low so that similar (and extended) SmPL scripts can be used for
more automatic source code transformations with higher confidence.
*
>> How should the source code search be improved further here?
>
> If you like the results from the second case, what more do you want?
* There are also several questionable transformation suggestions generated
besides the usable ones.
* Will answers belong also to the topic “Get the non-optio
> You would need when any on the ... Otherwise, it will not match anything
> (perhaps declarations). The s1 after is precludes matching any statement.
> Likewise in the next if.
The suggested variant does still not work in the way I would expect it.
@duplicated_code@
identifier work;
statement s
> I have tried another variant out for a source code analysis.
Does the following SmPL script variant make sense?
@duplicated_code@
identifier work;
statement s1, s2;
type T;
@@
T work(...)
{
... when any
*if ((...) < 0)
*{
...
* s1
* s2
*}
<+...
*if ((...) < 0)
*{
...
* s1
*
>>> The pattern matched in two different functions?
>>
>> Please look once more.
>>
>> Yes. - This is one of the reasons why I ask here again.
>>
>> I would like to choose if a code analysis should happen only within a single
>> function
>> or on interesting parts from the complete source file.
>
>> How do the presented functions “usb6fire_fw_ezusb_upload” and
>> “usb6fire_fw_fpga_upload”
>> fit to this information?
>
> The pattern matched in two different functions?
Please look once more.
Yes. - This is one of the reasons why I ask here again.
I would like to choose if a code analysis
>> * A test result was shown from two function implementations.
>> It can be nice to compare several functions.
>> Is it also possible that the comparison will be only performed within
>> the same function bodies?
>
> If you make a single rule then it will only applied within individual
> f
>> How would you like to treat variations in such log messages?
>
> They look fine as they are.
I have got other development opinions there depending on the preferred design
goals.
* The mentioned small SmPL script can also help to find special differences.
* These log statements are similar (
1 - 100 of 922 matches
Mail list logo
