Hi, On Thu, 2 May 2019, SZEDER Gábor wrote: > On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 06:01:08AM -0400, Denton Liu wrote: > > > Is it not possible to exclude certain directories for certain semantic > > > patches? > > > > > > I guess we could also simply declare that *all* Coccinelle patches should > > > leave `compat/` alone, on the basis that those files are likely coming > > > from some sort of upstream. But then, `compat/mingw.c` and `compat/win32/` > > > seem not to fall into that category... > > > > > > Ciao, > > > Dscho > > > > Deciding whether this is a good idea is above my paygrade ;) :-) As a software developer, you surely have an opinion, though :-D Thank you for the patch, it is a good conversation starter in the least, and I hope that some variation of it will even make it to `master`. > [...] what about 'compat/win32mmap.c' and 'compat/winansi.c'? They look > like "ours" as well. Indeed, this is probably a good indicator that we'd want this to be an opt-out, rather than an opt-in list. For example, we know that we want to exclude compat/regex/ and compat/poll/ from the `coccicheck` target. > FWIW, out of curiosity I've run 'make coccicheck' on Linux with > 'compat/mingw.c' and its friends explicitly added to C_SOURCES, and it > seems to work... it even found two places in 'mingw.c' where > COPY_ARRAY could replace memcpy() :) TBH I had not even known that those files were excluded from coccicheck by default. I had assumed that all of Git's sources (and not just the Linux-specific ones) were included in the target. Since you *could* include it, I now assume that Coccinelle does not need to follow the `#include`s (otherwise, it would have complained about not finding the `windows.h` header in your setup). If this new assumption is true, I wonder why we cannot make my former assumption true as well: why not include *all* of Git's `.c` files in `coccicheck`? Ciao, Dscho
