From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>
To: Jonathon Reinhart <jonathon.reinhart@gmail.com>
Cc: cocci@inria.fr
Subject: Re: [cocci] Converting strncmp() to strcmp() with SmPL
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2022 20:10:12 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <18d760dd-fee1-97f4-4460-566f978a21f6@web.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPFHKzeapJcz_LNYajjsKPefeCfO3ZgtYprtVBWLunk8=YgNMw@mail.gmail.com>
>> I suggest to take the following SmPL code variant also into account.
>>
>> -strncmp
>> +strcmp
>> (x, literal
>> - , n
>> )
> Thanks for the suggestion. I did see that variant, and I like it for
> removing a parameter,
That is nice.
> but I feel it is less clear in this situation.
I hope that such a view can be reconsidered a bit more.
Did you get used to the expectation from other (software) areas
that only the essential changes should be specified in any code?
> Good to know that I'm not missing some other easier approach.
Further development options (and solution ideas) are in some waiting queues.
> I shouldn't have said the examples with constraints are scarce
We can get different impressions from statistics.
> -- I should have said they are difficult to locate amongst all
> of the examples that exist.
>
> Then again, I'm brand new to Coccinelle,
Further learning experiences will evolve accordingly, won't they?
> so I imagine locating the right information gets easier.
You got used to some other information sources already.
> 1. strncmp(foo, "bar", strlen("bar"))
> 2. strncmp(foo, "bar", sizeof("bar"))
>
> Neither is "wrong", per se, but the behavior is different because
> sizeof("bar") includes the NUL terminator, and thus sizeof("bar") ==
> strlen("bar")+1.
Such code specifications are questionable for some reasons.
They were discussed several times before, weren't they?
Regards,
Markus
prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-12-10 19:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-12-10 8:03 [cocci] Converting strncmp() to strcmp(): constraint on variable cannot be evaluated due to disjunction Jonathon Reinhart
2022-12-10 9:31 ` Julia Lawall
2022-12-10 12:20 ` Markus Elfring
2022-12-10 16:16 ` Jonathon Reinhart
2022-12-10 19:10 ` Markus Elfring [this message]
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=18d760dd-fee1-97f4-4460-566f978a21f6@web.de \
--to=markus.elfring@web.de \
--cc=cocci@inria.fr \
--cc=jonathon.reinhart@gmail.com \
/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 read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).