[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2001110841140.2965@hadrien>
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2020 08:44:36 +0100 (CET)
From: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>
To: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
cc: Wen Yang <wenyang@...ux.alibaba.com>, cocci@...teme.lip6.fr,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@...6.fr>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
Matthias Männich <maennich@...gle.com>,
Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@...g.fr>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [v3] coccinelle: semantic patch to check for inappropriate
do_div() calls
> > +*do_div(f, \( l \| ul \| ul64 \| sl64 \) );
> >
> > We agree with Julia:
> > I don't se any point to this.
>
> Can the avoidance of duplicate source code (according to SmPL disjunctions)
> trigger positive effects on run time characteristics and software maintenance?
Markus. Please stop asking this question. You are bothering people with
this advice, why don't _you_ figure out once and for all whether the change
that you suggest has any "positive effects on the run time
characteristics"? Hint: it will not. You don't even have to run Coccinelle
to see that. Just use spatch --parse-cocci on your two suggestions and you
will see that they expand to the same thing. Coccinelle has a pass that
propagates disjunctions at the sub-statement level to the statement level.
julia
Powered by blists - more mailing lists