[Cocci] Matching format strings

[okuznik@symas.com (Ondřej Kuzník)]

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 07:26:36PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> Try running spatch --parse-c on your directory to get a list at the end of
> the top 10 things it doesn't like.

One of the system dependent macros SLAP_EVENT_DECL is listed in each of
the 10 things. The macro is used in
https://github.com/openldap/openldap/blob/master/servers/slapd/daemon.c#L2343
to declare some variables used in the corresponding event loop.

The macro definition looks like this:

# define SLAP_EVENT_DECL		struct pollfd *revents

or:

# define SLAP_EVENT_DECL	fd_set readfds, writefds; char *rflags

Ignoring this macro is OK I guess, if there is a way to do that with
coccinelle?

Also, moving onto the other patch, I get similar inconsistencies with
./servers/slapd/back-sql/add.c, --parse-c doesn't list any problematic
statements but the output logs a few parse errors that don't make much
sense to me.

Thanks,
Ondrej

> On Mon, 10 Jul 2017, Ond?ej Kuzn?k wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 06:18:14PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
>>> On Mon, 10 Jul 2017, Ond?ej Kuzn?k wrote:
>>>> Thanks, good thing is make test now seems to pass for the first round of
>>>> patches.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, I'm now having a similar issue with ./servers/slapd/daemon.c,
>>>> spatch --parse-c will complain about the SLAP_EVENT_DECL macro and I can
>>>> see other issues with LDAP_LIST/LDAP_STAILQ/... macros in the output.
>>>>
>>>> This patch is the one that's affected (among others), it will make some
>>>> changes, applying them and then running it again will make more until
>>>> eventually managing to pick up most or all of the ones that I'd expect:
>>>>
>>>> @@
>>>> format list[2] fmt;
>>>> expression list[2] args;
>>>> expression E;
>>>> @@
>>>>
>>>> Debug( E, "%@fmt@", args
>>>> -, 0
>>>>  );
>>>>
>>>> @@
>>>> format list[1] fmt;
>>>> expression list[1] args;
>>>> expression E;
>>>> @@
>>>>
>>>> Debug( E, "%@fmt@", args
>>>> -, 0, 0
>>>>  );
>>>>
>>>> @@
>>>> expression E, S;
>>>> @@
>>>>
>>>> Debug( E, S
>>>> -, 0, 0, 0
>>>>  );
>>>>
>>>> Is there a way to work around that somehow?
>>>
>>> I'm not sure to understand the relation between the macro problem and the
>>> need to iterate.
>>
>> The above patch will make some changes but not all (even though the
>> patch is idempotent) but iteration seems to help. It seems that it's
>> because spatch does not like the file (or rather some of the macros
>> there).
>>
>> --
>> Ond?ej Kuzn?k
>> Senior Software Engineer
>> Symas Corporation                       http://www.symas.com
>> Packaged, certified, and supported LDAP solutions powered by OpenLDAP
>>


-- 
Ond?ej Kuzn?k
Senior Software Engineer
Symas Corporation                       http://www.symas.com
Packaged, certified, and supported LDAP solutions powered by OpenLDAP