git-commit-vandalism/contrib/coccinelle/preincr.cocci

@@
identifier i;
@@
- ++i > 1
+ i++
cocci rules: remove <id>'s from rules that don't need them The <id> in the <rulename> part of the coccinelle syntax[1] is for our purposes there to declares if we have inter-dependencies between different rules. But such <id>'s must be unique within a given semantic patch file. As we'll be processing a concatenated version of our rules in the subsequent commit let's remove these names. They weren't being used for the semantic patches themselves, and equated to a short comment about the rule. Both the filename and context of the rules makes it clear what they're doing, so we're not gaining anything from keeping these. Retaining them goes against recommendations that "contrib/coccinelle/README" will be making in the subsequent commit. This leaves only one named rule in our sources, where it's needed for a "<id> <-> <extends> <id>" relationship: $ git -P grep '^@ ' -- contrib/coccinelle/ contrib/coccinelle/swap.cocci:@ swap @ contrib/coccinelle/swap.cocci:@ extends swap @ 1. https://coccinelle.gitlabpages.inria.fr/website/docs/main_grammar.html Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com> 2022-11-01 23:35:53 +01:00			`@@`
cocci: simplify "if (++u > 1)" to "if (u++)" It is more common to use post-increment than pre-increment when the side effect is the primary thing we want in our code and in C in general (unlike C++). Initializing a variable to 0, incrementing it every time we do something, and checking if we have already done that thing to guard the code to do that thing, is easier to understand when written if (u++) ; /* we've done that! / else do_it(); / just once. */ but if you try to use pre-increment, you end up with a less natural looking if (++u > 1) Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> 2018-10-24 03:10:10 +02:00			`identifier i;`
			`@@`
			`- ++i > 1`
			`+ i++`