Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: >> But the fix here isn't to delete unused.cocci, but to hold off on the >> UNUSEwork D() patches until we figure out how to make coccinelle jive with >> them. > > Yeah, my general skepticism and disappointment above notwithstanding, > this seems like the best path forward from here. I tried a few other > tricks (like --macro-file and --iso-file), but if its parser chokes, I > don't think there's much we can do about it. Even if we wrote a patch to > coccinelle itself (and I have no interest in doing that myself), it > would take a while to become available. If it is just a single unused.cocci, I would actually think removing it would be a much better path forward. UNUSED() that renames to help folks without checking compilers would help noticing bad code much earlier than unused.cocci many contributors are not running themselves anyway.
