On Tue, 19 Sep 2017, Liam Breck wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 3:00 PM, Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 19 Sep 2017, Liam Breck wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Julia,
> >>
> >> I think Sebastian referred this to you in hopes of receiving a script
> >> that would find duplicate arrays, similarly to the way
> >> bq27xxx_battery_dbg_dupes does in the running code. Did you interpret
> >> his request differently?
> >>
> >> bq27xxx_battery_dbg_dupes:
> >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9918953/
> >>
> >> The data structures being checked start here:
> >> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/sre/linux-power-supply.git/tree/drivers/power/supply/bq27xxx_battery.c?h=for-next#n138
> >>
> >> And are aggregated here:
> >> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/sre/linux-power-supply.git/tree/drivers/power/supply/bq27xxx_battery.c?h=for-next#n743
> >>
> >> The defines can be sed'd to pointers with 0 value, and array
> >> comparisons where 1 pointer is 0 can be skipped.
> >
> > I followed the spirit of the runtime testing code.  But Coccinelle doesn't
> > normally unfold the definitions of macros.  All it can do is take the
> > different lists of fields and see if they are textually the same.
>
> There's no need to unfold macros. If you did, you would get false
> positives. You do need to skip them somehow, hence the idea of sed'ing
> to null pointers.

I meant that for the properties, the values are:

static enum power_supply_property bq27000_props[] = {
	POWER_SUPPLY_PROP_STATUS,
	POWER_SUPPLY_PROP_PRESENT,
	POWER_SUPPLY_PROP_VOLTAGE_NOW,
	POWER_SUPPLY_PROP_CURRENT_NOW,
	POWER_SUPPLY_PROP_CAPACITY,
	POWER_SUPPLY_PROP_CAPACITY_LEVEL,
	POWER_SUPPLY_PROP_TEMP,
	POWER_SUPPLY_PROP_TIME_TO_EMPTY_NOW,
	POWER_SUPPLY_PROP_TIME_TO_EMPTY_AVG,
	POWER_SUPPLY_PROP_TIME_TO_FULL_NOW,
	POWER_SUPPLY_PROP_TECHNOLOGY,
	POWER_SUPPLY_PROP_CHARGE_FULL,
	POWER_SUPPLY_PROP_CHARGE_NOW,
	POWER_SUPPLY_PROP_CHARGE_FULL_DESIGN,
	POWER_SUPPLY_PROP_CYCLE_COUNT,
	POWER_SUPPLY_PROP_ENERGY_NOW,
	POWER_SUPPLY_PROP_POWER_AVG,
	POWER_SUPPLY_PROP_HEALTH,
	POWER_SUPPLY_PROP_MANUFACTURER,
};

Coccinelle is comparing the list of names, not the list of integers that
these names are expanding to.

Also, Coccinelle is comparing the list, but I guess you would prefer that
it compare the set, to check for the cases where the names are the same
but appear in a different order.


>
> > I've attached the script and some fake data that I made to test it.  The
> > fake data has some added cases where I have replaced 27 in the structure
> > name by 07.  For my test data I get:
> >
> > bq07421_regs and bq27421_regs have the same registers
> > bq07000_regs and bq27000_regs have the same registers
> > bq07421_dm_regs and bq27421_dm_regs have the same registers
> > bq07421_props and bq27421_props have the same properties
> > bq07000_props and bq27000_props have the same properties
> >
> > You won't get this currently; I needed to make some improvements to the
> > Coccinelle C code parser.
>
> I didn't see anything attached, script or data.

Sorry, should be there now.

> The script should compare each object with only those objects that
> follow it in sequence, so it doesn't repeat comparisons or compare to
> self.

It does this, ie it only compares xxx to yyy when xxx is alphabetically
less than yyy.

julia