> Patch generated by Coccinelle (and contrib/coccinelle/strbuf.cocci). Interesting. The static analysis build job on Travis CI runs 'make coccicheck', so it should have caught this. However, I've looked at more build job results than I could count while working on some Travis CI related patches in the last few weeks, but I've never noticed Coccinelle proposing anything. Now I see that Coccinelle's, and in turn 'make coccicheck's exit code only indicates that Coccinelle managed to finish without any errors (e.g. no wrong --options, missing files or whatnot), but it has nothing to do with whether it found something to transform or not. To find out the latter, we have to check the resulting 'contrib/coccinelle/*.cocci.patch' files or look closer at 'make coccicheck's standard output. If any of those '*.cocci.patch' files are not empty and make's output contains lines like: SPATCH result: contrib/coccinelle/strbuf.cocci.patch then Coccinelle found something. Well, OK, I think that might be an acceptable behavior for developers running 'make coccicheck' themselves, but totally unsuitable for automated Travis CI build jobs, because it doesn't draw our attention to Coccinelle's findings. And the only means to draw attention in an automated setting is to fail the buid job. Good, I quickly whipped up a patch to fail the build job if any of the resulting '*.cocci.patch' files are not empty and also to include their content in the trace log, to see how that would work out, and... > "make coccicheck" doesn't propose any other changes for current master. ... and found that 'make coccicheck' on Travis CI _does_ propose further changes for current master. You can find the build job's output including those proposed changes here: https://travis-ci.org/szeder/git/jobs/329296813#L586 The proposed changes coming from 'array.cocci' are replacing memmove() calls with MOVE_ARRAY(). After a (very) cursory look they all seem to make sense to me; at least after applying those changes Git can be built and the test suite still succeeds. Unfortunately, most of the changes coming from 'strbuf.cocci' don't make any sense, they appear to be the mis-application of the "use strbuf_addstr() instead of strbuf_addf() to add a single string" rule: - strbuf_addf(&sb_repo, "%d", counter); + strbuf_addstr(&sb_repo, counter); It seems that those rules need some refinement, but I have no idea about Coccinelle and this is not the time for me to dig deeper. What makes all this weird is that running 'make coccicheck' on my own machine doesn't produce any of these additional proposed changes, just like at René's. Can it be related to differing Coccinelle versions? Travis CI installs 1.0.0~rc19.deb-3; I have 1.0.4.deb-2. Gábor
