On Mon, 12 Sep 2016, Felipe Balbi wrote:
Hi,
Jarkko Sakkinen jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com writes:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:54:07AM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
On Sun, 11 Sep 2016, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 03:05:42PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
Constify local structures.
The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows: (http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/)
Just my two cents but:
- You *can* use a static analysis too to find bugs or other issues.
- However, you should manually do the commits and proper commit messages to subsystems based on your findings. And I generally think that if one contributes code one should also at least smoke test changes somehow.
I don't know if I'm alone with my opinion. I just think that one should also do the analysis part and not blindly create and submit patches.
All of the patches are compile tested. And the individual patches are
Compile-testing is not testing. If you are not able to test a commit, you should explain why.
Dude, Julia has been doing semantic patching for years already and nobody has raised any concerns so far. There's already an expectation that Coccinelle *works* and Julia's sematic patches are sound.
Besides, adding 'const' is something that causes virtually no functional changes to the point that build-testing is really all you need. Any problems caused by adding 'const' to a definition will be seen by build errors or warnings.
Really, just stop with the pointless discussion and go read a bit about Coccinelle and what semantic patches are giving you. The work done by Julia and her peers are INRIA have measurable benefits.
You're really making a thunderstorm in a glass of water.
Thanks for the defense, but since a lot of these patches torned out to be wrong, due to an incorrect parse by Coccinelle, combined with an unpleasantly lax compiler, Jarkko does have a point that I should have looked at the patches more carefully. In any case, I have written to the maintainers relevant to the patches that turned out to be incorrect.
julia