René Scharfe <l.s.r@xxxxxx> writes:
> We can check if certain characters are present in a string by calling
> strchr(3) on each of them, or we can pass them all to a single
> strpbrk(3) call. The latter is shorter, less repetitive and slightly
> more efficient, so let's do that instead.
>
> Signed-off-by: René Scharfe <l.s.r@xxxxxx>
> ---
> builtin/show-branch.c | 2 +-
> compat/mingw.c | 2 +-
> mailinfo.c | 3 +--
> t/helper/test-windows-named-pipe.c | 2 +-
> 4 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/builtin/show-branch.c b/builtin/show-branch.c
> index 35d7f51c23..8c90cbb18f 100644
> --- a/builtin/show-branch.c
> +++ b/builtin/show-branch.c
> @@ -536,7 +536,7 @@ static void append_one_rev(const char *av)
> append_ref(av, &revkey, 0);
> return;
> }
> - if (strchr(av, '*') || strchr(av, '?') || strchr(av, '[')) {
> + if (strpbrk(av, "*?[")) {
The changes in the patch obviously look all correct.
I wonder how we can exploit Coccinelle to do this kind of
transformations, though. Would it be possible to say
* if we see "strchr(S, C1) || strchr(S, C2)", transform it to
"strpbrk(S, concat(stringify(C1),stringify(C2)))"; and
* if we see "strpbrk(S, N) || strchr(S, C)", transform it to
"strpbrk(S, concat(N, stringify(C))";
and let the tool apply these two rules repeatedly, to catch the
pattern to find any number of needle character in the same haystack?
