316e3886e3
Improve the incremental rebuilding support of "coccicheck" by piggy-backing on the computed dependency information of the corresponding *.o file, rather than rebuilding all <RULE>/<FILE> pairs if either their corresponding file changes, or if any header changes. This in effect uses the same method that the "sparse" target was made to use in |
||
---|---|---|
.. | ||
tests | ||
.gitignore | ||
array.cocci | ||
commit.cocci | ||
equals-null.cocci | ||
flex_alloc.cocci | ||
free.cocci | ||
hashmap.cocci | ||
object_id.cocci | ||
preincr.cocci | ||
qsort.cocci | ||
README | ||
strbuf.cocci | ||
swap.cocci | ||
the_repository.pending.cocci | ||
unused.cocci | ||
xcalloc.cocci | ||
xopen.cocci | ||
xstrdup_or_null.cocci |
This directory provides examples of Coccinelle (http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/) semantic patches that might be useful to developers. There are two types of semantic patches: * Using the semantic transformation to check for bad patterns in the code; The target 'make coccicheck' is designed to check for these patterns and it is expected that any resulting patch indicates a regression. The patches resulting from 'make coccicheck' are small and infrequent, so once they are found, they can be sent to the mailing list as per usual. Example for introducing new patterns: 67947c34ae (convert "hashcmp() != 0" to "!hasheq()", 2018-08-28) b84c783882 (fsck: s/++i > 1/i++/, 2018-10-24) Example of fixes using this approach: 248f66ed8e (run-command: use strbuf_addstr() for adding a string to a strbuf, 2018-03-25) f919ffebed (Use MOVE_ARRAY, 2018-01-22) These types of semantic patches are usually part of testing, c.f. 0860a7641b (travis-ci: fail if Coccinelle static analysis found something to transform, 2018-07-23) * Using semantic transformations in large scale refactorings throughout the code base. When applying the semantic patch into a real patch, sending it to the mailing list in the usual way, such a patch would be expected to have a lot of textual and semantic conflicts as such large scale refactorings change function signatures that are used widely in the code base. A textual conflict would arise if surrounding code near any call of such function changes. A semantic conflict arises when other patch series in flight introduce calls to such functions. So to aid these large scale refactorings, semantic patches can be used. However we do not want to store them in the same place as the checks for bad patterns, as then automated builds would fail. That is why semantic patches 'contrib/coccinelle/*.pending.cocci' are ignored for checks, and can be applied using 'make coccicheck-pending'. This allows to expose plans of pending large scale refactorings without impacting the bad pattern checks. Git-specific tips & things to know about how we run "spatch": * The "make coccicheck" will piggy-back on "COMPUTE_HEADER_DEPENDENCIES". If you've built a given object file the "coccicheck" target will consider its depednency to decide if it needs to re-run on the corresponding source file. This means that a "make coccicheck" will re-compile object files before running. This might be unexpected, but speeds up the run in the common case, as e.g. a change to "column.h" won't require all coccinelle rules to be re-run against "grep.c" (or another file that happens not to use "column.h"). To disable this behavior use the "SPATCH_USE_O_DEPENDENCIES=NoThanks" flag.