From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11139 invoked by alias); 2 Jul 2012 02:49:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 11122 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Jul 2012 02:49:43 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 02 Jul 2012 02:49:17 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q622nIYx006182 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Sun, 1 Jul 2012 22:49:18 -0400 Received: from spoyarek (vpn-235-172.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.235.172]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q622nF2f013887; Sun, 1 Jul 2012 22:49:16 -0400 Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2012 02:49:00 -0000 From: Siddhesh Poyarekar To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Tom Tromey , Sergio Durigan Subject: Re: Splint report and scripts for gdb (was: Expand bitpos and type.length) Message-ID: <20120702081923.5a5322d4@spoyarek> In-Reply-To: <20120701193755.GA8904@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <20120628184814.30a8977f@spoyarek> <20120701193755.GA8904@host2.jankratochvil.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-07/txt/msg00006.txt.bz2 On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 21:37:55 +0200, Jan wrote: > While you now consider it as two different records. But this should > not miss any record, it just adds more records to process - although > you discard these in splint-siddhesh-process-locdiff by rules like so > it does not matter: if (/Previous definition of \w+: \w+/) { > Not sure if it was all intentional or not. It was intentional, because the extra spaces are also used in cases where there are two warnings for one line. > # If the TYPE_LENGTH expression is a builtin_type then we're > safe. $_ = $expr; > return 1 if (/builtin_type[^ ]+->length/); > - I would not call it safe, it can be a part of an arbitrary large > expression. But the 6 cases where it applies are OK. Yes, this was hard-coding on my part based on the input. > if (/^ (Right)|(Left) operand of \W+ /) { > - it did not discard any important line but the regex is dangerously > wrong, it does: > if (/^ Right/ || /Left operand of \W+ /) { This should have been: if (/^ ((Right)|(Left)) operand of \W+ /) { > > Otherwise I have made comments to your .report file. I believe we > should follow now the 'compact' form instead. It is a lot of work as > I see. Thanks, that was the report before I did further work on the script. I'll work on the rest and post the report with the compact form next. Regards, Siddhesh