* [cocci] Possible bug in a semantic patch
@ 2022-11-09 11:42 Elia Pinto
2022-11-09 11:49 ` Julia Lawall
2022-11-09 20:21 ` [cocci] Fixing the adjustment of variable declarations Markus Elfring
0 siblings, 2 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Elia Pinto @ 2022-11-09 11:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cocci, cocci
Greetings to all
I am trying to apply this semantic patch
****sp.cocci file ***********************************
/ * SPDX-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1-or-later * /
@@
type T;
identifier I;
statement S;
expression E1, E2, E3;
@@
- T I;
... when != I
- for (I = E1; E2; E3)
+ for (T I = E1; E2; E3)
S
... when != I
****************************************
to this repository
https://github.com/git/git.git
The semantic patch works on almost any code. However, it produces an
incorrect transformation on the refs.c file
https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/refs.c
Doing
spatch --sp-file sp.cocci refs.c -o refs.after.c
An incorrect transformation is created:
diff -Nu refs.c refs.after.c
.....
@@ -733.12 +730.12 @@
int expand_ref (struct repository * repo, const char * str, int len,
struct object_id * oid, char ** ref)
{
- const char ** p, * r;
+ const char ** r; ç========================= NOTE
......
which erroneously changes the type of the variable r.
Is it a bug or should the semantic patch be done better?
Thanks in advance
Elia
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [cocci] Possible bug in a semantic patch
2022-11-09 11:42 [cocci] Possible bug in a semantic patch Elia Pinto
@ 2022-11-09 11:49 ` Julia Lawall
2022-11-09 20:21 ` [cocci] Fixing the adjustment of variable declarations Markus Elfring
1 sibling, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Julia Lawall @ 2022-11-09 11:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Elia Pinto; +Cc: cocci, cocci
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1332 bytes --]
On Wed, 9 Nov 2022, Elia Pinto wrote:
> Greetings to all
>
> I am trying to apply this semantic patch
>
> ****sp.cocci file ***********************************
>
> / * SPDX-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1-or-later * /
>
> @@
>
> type T;
>
> identifier I;
>
> statement S;
>
> expression E1, E2, E3;
>
> @@
>
>
>
> - T I;
>
> ... when != I
>
> - for (I = E1; E2; E3)
>
> + for (T I = E1; E2; E3)
>
> S
>
> ... when != I
>
>
>
> ****************************************
>
> to this repository
>
> https://github.com/git/git.git
>
> The semantic patch works on almost any code. However, it produces an
> incorrect transformation on the refs.c file
> https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/refs.c
>
> Doing
>
> spatch --sp-file sp.cocci refs.c -o refs.after.c
>
> An incorrect transformation is created:
>
> diff -Nu refs.c refs.after.c
>
> .....
>
> @@ -733.12 +730.12 @@
>
> int expand_ref (struct repository * repo, const char * str, int len,
>
> struct object_id * oid, char ** ref)
>
> {
>
> - const char ** p, * r;
>
> + const char ** r; ç========================= NOTE
>
>
>
> ......
>
> which erroneously changes the type of the variable r.
>
> Is it a bug or should the semantic patch be done better?
Sorry, definitely a bug. Thanks for the report.
julia
>
> Thanks in advance
>
>
>
> Elia
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [cocci] Fixing the adjustment of variable declarations
2022-11-09 11:42 [cocci] Possible bug in a semantic patch Elia Pinto
2022-11-09 11:49 ` Julia Lawall
@ 2022-11-09 20:21 ` Markus Elfring
2022-11-11 19:10 ` [cocci] Reducing the scope for variables with SmPL Markus Elfring
2022-11-12 9:42 ` [cocci] Fixing the adjustment of variable declarations Markus Elfring
1 sibling, 2 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Markus Elfring @ 2022-11-09 20:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Elia Pinto, cocci
> The semantic patch works on almost any code. However, it produces an
> incorrect transformation on the refs.c file
> https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/refs.c
>
> Doing
>
> spatch --sp-file sp.cocci refs.c -o refs.after.c
>
> An incorrect transformation is created:
…
> which erroneously changes the type of the variable r.
>
> Is it a bug
You found a detail which will hopefully trigger further collateral evolution.
Another test result:
Markus_Elfring@Sonne:…/Projekte/Coccinelle/Probe> spatch suggestion_for_Elia_Pinto-20221109.cocci expand_ref-test.c
…
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
void my_expand_ref_variant(void)
{
- const char **p, *r;
- for (p = ref_rev_parse_rules; *p; ++p)
+ const char **r;
+ for (const char **p = ref_rev_parse_rules; *p; ++p)
{ /* loop content */ }
}
> or should the semantic patch be done better?
How do you think about software development possibilities with the following
script variant for the semantic patch language?
@movement@
type T;
identifier I;
statement S;
expression E1, E2, E3;
@@
(
-T I = E1;
... when != I
for (
+ T
I = E1; E2; E3
)
S
... when != I
|
-T I;
... when != I
for (
+ T
I = E1; E2; E3
)
S
... when != I
)
Regards,
Markus
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [cocci] Reducing the scope for variables with SmPL
2022-11-09 20:21 ` [cocci] Fixing the adjustment of variable declarations Markus Elfring
@ 2022-11-11 19:10 ` Markus Elfring
2022-11-12 9:42 ` [cocci] Fixing the adjustment of variable declarations Markus Elfring
1 sibling, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Markus Elfring @ 2022-11-11 19:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Elia Pinto, cocci
>> or should the semantic patch be done better?
> How do you think about software development possibilities with the following
> script variant for the semantic patch language?
@movement disable decl_init@
type T;
identifier I;
initializer init;
expression E1, E2, E3;
statement S;
@@
(
-T I = init;
... when != I
for (
+ T
I =
- E1
+ init
; E2; E3
)
S
... when != I
|
-T I;
... when != I
for (
+ T
I = E1; E2; E3
)
S
... when != I
)
Would you like to reduce the scope for any more variables?
https://refactoring.com/catalog/reduceScopeOfVariable.html
Does such a source code transformation approach point also any opportunities out
for further improvements of the corresponding software documentation?
Regards,
Markus
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [cocci] Fixing the adjustment of variable declarations
2022-11-09 20:21 ` [cocci] Fixing the adjustment of variable declarations Markus Elfring
2022-11-11 19:10 ` [cocci] Reducing the scope for variables with SmPL Markus Elfring
@ 2022-11-12 9:42 ` Markus Elfring
2022-11-12 10:38 ` Markus Elfring
2022-11-13 10:30 ` Markus Elfring
1 sibling, 2 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Markus Elfring @ 2022-11-12 9:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Elia Pinto, cocci
> Is it a bug
Would you like to clarify a related bug report for the software combination “Coccinelle 1.1.1”?
SmPL script:
@moving disable decl_init@
type t;
identifier x;
@@
-t x;
+t
x = 'x';
Source file example:
void my_test_for_declarators(void)
{
char o, *p;
o = 'x';
}
Another test result:
Markus_Elfring@Sonne:…/Projekte/Coccinelle/Probe> spatch move_a_variable_declaration-20221112.cocci test_for_declarators1.c
…
Now I wonder why the expected diff output is not generated so far.
Should data like the following be presented?
-char o, *p;
+char *p;
-o = 'x';
+char o = 'x';
Regards,
Markus
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [cocci] Fixing the adjustment of variable declarations
2022-11-12 9:42 ` [cocci] Fixing the adjustment of variable declarations Markus Elfring
@ 2022-11-12 10:38 ` Markus Elfring
2022-11-12 11:17 ` Julia Lawall
2022-11-13 10:30 ` Markus Elfring
1 sibling, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Markus Elfring @ 2022-11-12 10:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cocci; +Cc: Elia Pinto
> Would you like to clarify a related bug report for the software combination “Coccinelle 1.1.1”?
Can another variant make sense for a transformation specification
if you would like to increase the change precision?
@moving2 disable decl_init@
type t;
identifier x, y;
@@
t
-x,
* y;
+t
x = 'x';
Markus_Elfring@Sonne:/home/altes_Heim2/elfring/Projekte/Coccinelle/Probe> spatch --parse-cocci move_a_variable_declaration2-20221112.cocci
…
minus: parse error:
File "move_a_variable_declaration2-20221112.cocci", line 7, column 1, charpos = 64
around = '*',
whole content = * y;
How will the handling of declarators evolve further?
https://en.cppreference.com/w/c/language/declarations
Regards,
Markus
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [cocci] Fixing the adjustment of variable declarations
2022-11-12 10:38 ` Markus Elfring
@ 2022-11-12 11:17 ` Julia Lawall
2022-11-12 11:45 ` Markus Elfring
0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Julia Lawall @ 2022-11-12 11:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Markus Elfring; +Cc: cocci, Elia Pinto
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 999 bytes --]
On Sat, 12 Nov 2022, Markus Elfring wrote:
>
> > Would you like to clarify a related bug report for the software combination “Coccinelle 1.1.1”?
>
> Can another variant make sense for a transformation specification
> if you would like to increase the change precision?
>
> @moving2 disable decl_init@
> type t;
> identifier x, y;
> @@
> t
> -x,
> * y;
> +t
> x = 'x';
Have you actually tried this? Because multiple declarations, ie of both x
and y, are not supported in SmPL. Please actually try suggestions before
posting them.
julia
>
>
> Markus_Elfring@Sonne:/home/altes_Heim2/elfring/Projekte/Coccinelle/Probe> spatch --parse-cocci move_a_variable_declaration2-20221112.cocci
> …
> minus: parse error:
> File "move_a_variable_declaration2-20221112.cocci", line 7, column 1, charpos = 64
> around = '*',
> whole content = * y;
>
>
> How will the handling of declarators evolve further?
> https://en.cppreference.com/w/c/language/declarations
>
> Regards,
> Markus
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [cocci] Fixing the adjustment of variable declarations
2022-11-12 11:17 ` Julia Lawall
@ 2022-11-12 11:45 ` Markus Elfring
0 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Markus Elfring @ 2022-11-12 11:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Julia Lawall; +Cc: cocci, Elia Pinto
>> Can another variant make sense for a transformation specification
>> if you would like to increase the change precision?
>>
>> @moving2 disable decl_init@
>> type t;
>> identifier x, y;
>> @@
>> t
>> -x,
>> * y;
>> +t
>> x = 'x';
> Have you actually tried this?
Yes (in principle).
I stumbled on the message “minus: parse error:” accordingly.
> Because multiple declarations, ie of both x and y, are not supported in SmPL.
Can this software status be reconsidered?
https://en.cppreference.com/w/c/language/declarations
Regards,
Markus
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [cocci] Fixing the adjustment of variable declarations
2022-11-12 9:42 ` [cocci] Fixing the adjustment of variable declarations Markus Elfring
2022-11-12 10:38 ` Markus Elfring
@ 2022-11-13 10:30 ` Markus Elfring
2022-11-13 10:36 ` Julia Lawall
1 sibling, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Markus Elfring @ 2022-11-13 10:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cocci; +Cc: Elia Pinto
> @moving disable decl_init@
> type t;
> identifier x;
> @@
> -t x;
> +t
> x = 'x';
I would appreciate further feedback also for this tiny SmPL script variant.
I got the impression that additional clarification will be helpful
for some aspects.
https://gitlab.inria.fr/coccinelle/coccinelle/-/blob/768bd6eb0a2cbede8f1390009cc997ff57c339a4/docs/manual/cocci_syntax.tex#L1022
This transformation approach would require that a data type can be determined
from a source code fragment which should be adjusted before the same type
can be added to a subsequent statement.
How good can such changes be supported by the Coccinelle software?
Regards,
Markus
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [cocci] Fixing the adjustment of variable declarations
2022-11-13 10:30 ` Markus Elfring
@ 2022-11-13 10:36 ` Julia Lawall
2022-11-13 12:26 ` Markus Elfring
0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Julia Lawall @ 2022-11-13 10:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Markus Elfring; +Cc: cocci, Elia Pinto
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 900 bytes --]
On Sun, 13 Nov 2022, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > @moving disable decl_init@
> > type t;
> > identifier x;
> > @@
> > -t x;
> > +t
> > x = 'x';
>
> I would appreciate further feedback also for this tiny SmPL script variant.
> I got the impression that additional clarification will be helpful
> for some aspects.
> https://gitlab.inria.fr/coccinelle/coccinelle/-/blob/768bd6eb0a2cbede8f1390009cc997ff57c339a4/docs/manual/cocci_syntax.tex#L1022
>
> This transformation approach would require that a data type can be determined
> from a source code fragment which should be adjusted before the same type
> can be added to a subsequent statement.
> How good can such changes be supported by the Coccinelle software?
What is the problem with this semantic patch? You didn't have the
thoughfulness to provide a test case, but I tried one and it worked fine.
int main () {
int x;
x = 'x';
}
julia
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [cocci] Fixing the adjustment of variable declarations
2022-11-13 10:36 ` Julia Lawall
@ 2022-11-13 12:26 ` Markus Elfring
2022-11-13 14:10 ` Julia Lawall
0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Markus Elfring @ 2022-11-13 12:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Julia Lawall, cocci; +Cc: Elia Pinto
> What is the problem with this semantic patch?
It tried to express a reduced transformation approach also according to
a clarification attempt by Elia Pinto.
> You didn't have the thoughfulness to provide a test case,
I published one yesterday.
https://lore.kernel.org/cocci/b73dc7c1-d5ad-dd23-f559-7b73939ed710@web.de/
https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/arc/cocci/2022-11/msg00040.html
> but I tried one and it worked fine.
>
> int main () {
> int x;
> x = 'x';
> }
I can get a related test result.
Markus_Elfring@Sonne:…/Projekte/Coccinelle/Probe> spatch move_a_variable_declaration-20221112.cocci test_for_declarators2.c
…
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
void my_test_for_one_declaration(void)
{
- char o;
+ char
o = 'x';
}
Does it also mean that information from code deletions can generally be captured
for subsequent code additions?
https://gitlab.inria.fr/coccinelle/coccinelle/-/blob/768bd6eb0a2cbede8f1390009cc997ff57c339a4/docs/manual/cocci_syntax.tex#L1022
Why do I observe test results which are different in comparison to
the previously mentioned SmPL code variant “-T I;”?
Regards,
Markus
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [cocci] Fixing the adjustment of variable declarations
2022-11-13 12:26 ` Markus Elfring
@ 2022-11-13 14:10 ` Julia Lawall
2022-11-13 14:23 ` Markus Elfring
0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Julia Lawall @ 2022-11-13 14:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Markus Elfring; +Cc: Julia Lawall, cocci, Elia Pinto
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1357 bytes --]
On Sun, 13 Nov 2022, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > What is the problem with this semantic patch?
>
> It tried to express a reduced transformation approach also according to
> a clarification attempt by Elia Pinto.
>
>
>
> > You didn't have the thoughfulness to provide a test case,
>
> I published one yesterday.
> https://lore.kernel.org/cocci/b73dc7c1-d5ad-dd23-f559-7b73939ed710@web.de/
> https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/arc/cocci/2022-11/msg00040.html
>
>
> > but I tried one and it worked fine.
> >
> > int main () {
> > int x;
> > x = 'x';
> > }
>
> I can get a related test result.
>
> Markus_Elfring@Sonne:…/Projekte/Coccinelle/Probe> spatch move_a_variable_declaration-20221112.cocci test_for_declarators2.c
> …
> @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
> void my_test_for_one_declaration(void)
> {
> - char o;
> + char
> o = 'x';
> }
>
>
> Does it also mean that information from code deletions can generally be captured
> for subsequent code additions?
> https://gitlab.inria.fr/coccinelle/coccinelle/-/blob/768bd6eb0a2cbede8f1390009cc997ff57c339a4/docs/manual/cocci_syntax.tex#L1022
>
> Why do I observe test results which are different in comparison to
> the previously mentioned SmPL code variant “-T I;”?
Elia Pinto's problem is related to the management of *s. You can't see
the problem on a simple type like int.
julia
>
> Regards,
> Markus
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [cocci] Fixing the adjustment of variable declarations
2022-11-13 14:10 ` Julia Lawall
@ 2022-11-13 14:23 ` Markus Elfring
2022-11-13 14:28 ` Julia Lawall
0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Markus Elfring @ 2022-11-13 14:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Julia Lawall, cocci; +Cc: Elia Pinto
>> Why do I observe test results which are different in comparison to
>> the previously mentioned SmPL code variant “-T I;”?
> Elia Pinto's problem is related to the management of *s.
Do you notice really only open issues with the handling of asterisks
for pointer data types so far?
> You can't see the problem on a simple type like int.
I find that my mentioned test case points further questionable software behaviour out.
https://lore.kernel.org/cocci/b73dc7c1-d5ad-dd23-f559-7b73939ed710@web.de/
https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/arc/cocci/2022-11/msg00040.html
How will development considerations evolve accordingly?
Regards,
Markus
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [cocci] Fixing the adjustment of variable declarations
2022-11-13 14:23 ` Markus Elfring
@ 2022-11-13 14:28 ` Julia Lawall
2022-11-13 14:55 ` Markus Elfring
0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Julia Lawall @ 2022-11-13 14:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Markus Elfring; +Cc: Julia Lawall, cocci, Elia Pinto
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 963 bytes --]
On Sun, 13 Nov 2022, Markus Elfring wrote:
> >> Why do I observe test results which are different in comparison to
> >> the previously mentioned SmPL code variant “-T I;”?
> > Elia Pinto's problem is related to the management of *s.
>
> Do you notice really only open issues with the handling of asterisks
> for pointer data types so far?
>
>
>
> > You can't see the problem on a simple type like int.
>
> I find that my mentioned test case points further questionable software behaviour out.
> https://lore.kernel.org/cocci/b73dc7c1-d5ad-dd23-f559-7b73939ed710@web.de/
> https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/arc/cocci/2022-11/msg00040.html
>
> How will development considerations evolve accordingly?
If you use the option --debug, you get an explanation:
(ONCE) compress.c: 2: More than one variable in the declaration, and
so it cannot be transformed. Check that there is no transformation on the
type or the ;. Consider using ++ for an addition.
julia
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [cocci] Fixing the adjustment of variable declarations
2022-11-13 14:28 ` Julia Lawall
@ 2022-11-13 14:55 ` Markus Elfring
2022-11-13 15:19 ` Julia Lawall
0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Markus Elfring @ 2022-11-13 14:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Julia Lawall, cocci; +Cc: Elia Pinto
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 935 bytes --]
>> How will development considerations evolve accordingly?
> If you use the option --debug, you get an explanation:
>
> (ONCE) compress.c: 2: More than one variable in the declaration, and
> so it cannot be transformed. Check that there is no transformation on the
> type or the ;. …
Markus_Elfring@Sonne:…/Projekte/Coccinelle/Probe> spatch --debug suggestion3_for_Elia_Pinto-20221111.cocci expand_ref-test.c
…
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
void my_expand_ref_variant(void)
{
- const char **p, *r;
- for (p = ref_rev_parse_rules; *p; ++p)
+ const char **r;
+ for (const char **p = ref_rev_parse_rules; *p; ++p)
{ /* loop content */ }
}
…
The error message was not displayed for such a source code variant.
I got the impression instead that multiple declarators could be handled
to some degree for changeable variable declarations also by the means of
the semantic patch language.
Regards,
Markus
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1881 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [cocci] Fixing the adjustment of variable declarations
2022-11-13 14:55 ` Markus Elfring
@ 2022-11-13 15:19 ` Julia Lawall
2022-11-13 15:36 ` Markus Elfring
0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Julia Lawall @ 2022-11-13 15:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Markus Elfring; +Cc: cocci, Elia Pinto
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1082 bytes --]
On Sun, 13 Nov 2022, Markus Elfring wrote:
>
> How will development considerations evolve accordingly?
>
> If you use the option --debug, you get an explanation:
>
> (ONCE) compress.c: 2: More than one variable in the declaration, and
> so it cannot be transformed. Check that there is no transformation on the
> type or the ;. …
>
>
> Markus_Elfring@Sonne:…/Projekte/Coccinelle/Probe> spatch --debug suggestion3_for_Elia_Pinto-20221111.cocci expand_ref-test.c
> …
> @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
> void my_expand_ref_variant(void)
> {
> - const char **p, *r;
> - for (p = ref_rev_parse_rules; *p; ++p)
> + const char **r;
> + for (const char **p = ref_rev_parse_rules; *p; ++p)
> { /* loop content */ }
> }
> …
>
>
> The error message was not displayed for such a source code variant.
>
> I got the impression instead that multiple declarators could be handled
> to some degree for changeable variable declarations also by the means of
> the semantic patch language.
That is correct. They can be handled to some degree. That doesn't
contradict the message provided.
julia
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [cocci] Fixing the adjustment of variable declarations
2022-11-13 15:19 ` Julia Lawall
@ 2022-11-13 15:36 ` Markus Elfring
0 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Markus Elfring @ 2022-11-13 15:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Julia Lawall; +Cc: cocci, Elia Pinto
>> The error message was not displayed for such a source code variant.
>>
>> I got the impression instead that multiple declarators could be handled
>> to some degree for changeable variable declarations also by the means of
>> the semantic patch language.
> That is correct. They can be handled to some degree.
Thanks for your acknowledgement.
> That doesn't contradict the message provided.
I interpret the discussed software situation differently.
Should the source code fragment “char **p, *r;” be treated as an indication for
the declaration of two variables with different (pointer) data types?
Does hinder anything to extend the support for all other data types accordingly?
Regards,
Markus
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-11-13 15:36 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2022-11-09 11:42 [cocci] Possible bug in a semantic patch Elia Pinto
2022-11-09 11:49 ` Julia Lawall
2022-11-09 20:21 ` [cocci] Fixing the adjustment of variable declarations Markus Elfring
2022-11-11 19:10 ` [cocci] Reducing the scope for variables with SmPL Markus Elfring
2022-11-12 9:42 ` [cocci] Fixing the adjustment of variable declarations Markus Elfring
2022-11-12 10:38 ` Markus Elfring
2022-11-12 11:17 ` Julia Lawall
2022-11-12 11:45 ` Markus Elfring
2022-11-13 10:30 ` Markus Elfring
2022-11-13 10:36 ` Julia Lawall
2022-11-13 12:26 ` Markus Elfring
2022-11-13 14:10 ` Julia Lawall
2022-11-13 14:23 ` Markus Elfring
2022-11-13 14:28 ` Julia Lawall
2022-11-13 14:55 ` Markus Elfring
2022-11-13 15:19 ` Julia Lawall
2022-11-13 15:36 ` Markus Elfring
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).