[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c4b8270a-ae2a-e234-faa8-d5366605865e@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2018 22:52:23 +0200
From: Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk@....de>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc: Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [BUG] scripts/checkpatch.pl: false positive missing parentheses
On 05/07/2018 10:43 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-05-07 at 20:31 +0200, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
>> This patch creates a false positive:
>> ERROR: Macros with complex values should be enclosed in parentheses
>>
>> Here we define a constant that can be used to initialize a structure.
>> Adding parentheses would lead to a compile time error:
>> error: braced-group within expression allowed only inside a function
>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk@....de>
>> ---
>> foo.h | 8 ++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>> create mode 100644 foo.h
>>
>> diff --git a/foo.h b/foo.h
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..e2cba533f065
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/foo.h
>> @@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-2 */
>> +#define EFI_ST_DISK_IMG { 0x00003368, { \
>> + {0x00000d40, "\x6f\x63\x00\x2f\x2a\x00\x20\x2a"}, /* oc./*. * */ \
>> + {0x00000d48, "\x00\x20\x2a\x2f\x0a\x00\x09\x7b"}, /* . */...{ */ \
>
> I think this line would not do what you expect as the "/* . */" is
> a complete comment and the "...{ */" is parsed as code.
Thanks for catching this. If I replace the "internal" */ by ?/ the
problem does not occur. So probably we can close this issue.
So I think we can close the issue.
Best regards
Heinrich
>
>> + {0x00000d50, "\x30\x78\x25\x30\x38\x7a\x78\x2c"}, /* 0x%08zx, */ \
>> + {0x00000d58, "\x20\x22\x00\x5c\x78\x25\x30\x32"}, /* ".\x%02 */ \
>> + {0x00000d60, "\x78\x00\x20\x2a\x2f\x20\x5c\x00"}, /* x. */ \. */ \
>
> here too...
>
>> + {0, NULL} } }
>
> checkpatch will always be a stupid style checker.
>
> Some false positives are expected.
>
> I think this is one of them, but perhaps the bit of
> checkpatch logic in the COMPLEX_MACRO test could be
> improved by something like the below.
Do we have to consider something a macro with complex a
>
> Andy? What do you think?
>
> ---
> scripts/checkpatch.pl | 12 ++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> index 24618dffc5cb..9d3bdab03225 100755
> --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> @@ -785,6 +785,8 @@ our $Typecast = qr{\s*(\(\s*$NonptrType\s*\)){0,1}\s*};
> # Any use must be runtime checked with $^V
>
> our $balanced_parens = qr/(\((?:[^\(\)]++|(?-1))*\))/;
> +our $balanced_braces = qr/(\{(?:[^\{\}]++|(?-1))*\})/;
> +our $balanced_brackets = qr/(\[(?:[^\[\]]++|(?-1))*\])/;
> our $LvalOrFunc = qr{((?:[\&\*]\s*)?$Lval)\s*($balanced_parens{0,1})\s*};
> our $FuncArg = qr{$Typecast{0,1}($LvalOrFunc|$Constant|$String)};
>
> @@ -4953,6 +4955,16 @@ sub process {
> $dstat =~ s/^\s*//s;
> $dstat =~ s/\s*$//s;
>
> + # Flatten any parentheses and braces using the
> + # fancy balanced_<foo> tests (perl v5.10+ only)
> + if ($^V && $^V ge 5.10.0) {
> + while ($dstat =~ s/$balanced_parens/1/ ||
> + $dstat =~ s/$balanced_braces/1/ ||
> + $dstat =~ s/$balanced_brackets/1/)
> + {
> + }
> + }
> +
> # Flatten any parentheses and braces
> while ($dstat =~ s/\([^\(\)]*\)/1/ ||
> $dstat =~ s/\{[^\{\}]*\}/1/ ||
>
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists