On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 05:49:01PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 12:58:31AM -0700, Denton Liu wrote: > > compat/mingw.c | 2 +- > > compat/mingw.h | 6 +- > > compat/nedmalloc/malloc.c.h | 6 +- > > compat/obstack.h | 14 +- > > compat/poll/poll.h | 2 +- > > compat/regex/regex.h | 66 ++--- > > compat/win32/pthread.h | 8 +- > > We sometimes avoid touching compat/ code for style issues because it's > copied from elsewhere. And diverging from upstream is more evil than a > pure style issue. So potentially we could drop these hunks (though I > think maybe mingw is our own thing?). > > > contrib/coccinelle/noextern.cocci | 6 + > > I have mixed feelings on this cocci script. I have actual bad experience with this :) v4 of this patch series excluded 'compat/' from the conversion, but the semantic patch is applied to 'compat/' all the same, resulting in failed CI builds because of the four 'extern's in 'compat/obstack.h', and will continue to do so. (Coccinelle has no issues with those other header files; I guess those are not included in the '.c' source files we analyze with Coccinelle in a stock Linux build environment). > I'm happy to _see_ it, as > it's important to show how the transformation was done. But for most of > the other scripts, we expect programmers to introduce new cases that > need converting, and we'd like to catch those automatically. Here I find > it reasonably unlikely for a lot of "extern" to slip in, with the > exception of some topics in flight. > > And these coccinelle scripts are kind of expensive to run. So I wonder > if the tradeoff is worth it here (perhaps it is now, as we catch those > topics in flight, it might be worth dropping this one in a few months). > > At any rate, thanks for doing all of this tedious work. :) > > -Peff
