From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>
To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
Cc: Coccinelle <cocci@systeme.lip6.fr>
Subject: Re: [Cocci] Software analysis with SmPL around unchecked function calls
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2019 09:30:58 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <cd41e7ef-27b0-7491-9c3f-a66b2a722cc0@web.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1910110906390.2662@hadrien>
>> @display@
>> expression x;
>> identifier f;
>
> You can put f != {likely,unlikely} here.
I would appreciate to achieve a better understanding how these likeliness
annotations can influence the shown source code search approach.
> Maybe there will be some false positives when x->f is in a condition
> that previously checked that x is not NULL.
Such information can become more interesting.
> Does this happen a lot?
My view is incomplete.
> If the answer to either question is no, does the problem really matter?
> If it does really matter,
I hope that the probability for false positives (because of evolving
source code searches) can be considerably reduced.
> then it is possible to solve it, by adding a previous rule that
> marks such safe dereferences with a position variable. But I don't know
> whether it is worth it.
I am curious how corresponding software development efforts will evolve.
Regards,
Markus
_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-10-11 7:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-10-10 12:56 [Cocci] Software analysis with SmPL around unchecked function calls Markus Elfring
2019-10-10 13:13 ` Julia Lawall
2019-10-10 13:35 ` Markus Elfring
2019-10-10 13:38 ` Julia Lawall
2019-10-10 14:04 ` Markus Elfring
[not found] ` <alpine.DEB.2.21.1910101606420.2305@hadrien>
2019-10-10 14:15 ` Markus Elfring
[not found] ` <alpine.DEB.2.21.1910102053440.2500@hadrien>
2019-10-11 5:11 ` Markus Elfring
2019-10-11 6:07 ` Julia Lawall
2019-10-11 7:03 ` Markus Elfring
[not found] ` <alpine.DEB.2.21.1910110906390.2662@hadrien>
2019-10-11 7:30 ` Markus Elfring [this message]
2019-10-11 9:23 ` Markus Elfring
2019-10-10 16:25 ` Markus Elfring
2019-10-18 12:54 ` [Cocci] Software analysis with SmPL around unchecked pointer " Markus Elfring
2019-10-18 13:31 ` Julia Lawall
2019-10-18 13:42 ` Markus Elfring
2019-10-18 13:49 ` Julia Lawall
2019-10-18 14:20 ` Markus Elfring
2019-10-18 14:30 ` Julia Lawall
2019-10-18 14:34 ` Markus Elfring
2019-10-18 14:39 ` Julia Lawall
2019-10-18 14:46 ` Markus Elfring
2019-10-18 14:52 ` Julia Lawall
2019-10-18 14:56 ` Markus Elfring
2019-10-18 16:00 ` Markus Elfring
2019-10-18 16:06 ` Julia Lawall
2019-10-18 16:32 ` Markus Elfring
2019-10-19 15:33 ` Markus Elfring
2019-10-19 15:41 ` Julia Lawall
2019-10-19 16:04 ` Markus Elfring
2019-10-19 19:40 ` Markus Elfring
2019-10-20 5:42 ` Julia Lawall
2019-10-20 6:04 ` Markus Elfring
2019-10-20 9:22 ` Markus Elfring
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=cd41e7ef-27b0-7491-9c3f-a66b2a722cc0@web.de \
--to=markus.elfring@web.de \
--cc=cocci@systeme.lip6.fr \
--cc=julia.lawall@lip6.fr \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).