Hi Julia, On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 5:43 PM, Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 8 Dec 2014, Julian Calaby wrote: > >> Hi Julia, >> >> On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 6:20 AM, Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> > These patches replace what appears to be a reference to the name of the >> > current function but is misspelled in some way by either the name of the >> > function itself, or by %s and then __func__ in an argument list. >> >> Would there be any value in doing this for _all_ cases where the >> function name is written in a format string? > > Probably. But there are a lot of them. Even for the misspellings, I have > only don about 1/3 of the cases. > > On the other hand, the misspelling have to be checked carefully, because a > misspelling of one thing could be the correct spelling of the thing thst > was actually intended. > > Joe, however, points out that a lot of these prints are just for function > tracing, and could be removed. I worked on another semantic patch that > tries to do that. It might be better to remove those prints completely, > rather than sending one patch to transform them and then one patch to > remove them after that. That is why for this series I did only the ones > where there was actually a problem. Ok, that makes sense. Either way though, this is a really interesting application of the semantic patching. Nice work! Thanks, -- Julian Calaby Email: julian.calaby@xxxxxxxxx Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/julian.calaby/ _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
