On Thu 25-07-24 05:15:34, Julian Sun wrote:
> Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> 于2024年7月25日周四 04:52写道：
> >
> > On Thu 25-07-24 03:58:30, Julian Sun wrote:
> > > Reduce false positives in the macro_checker
> > > in the following scenarios:
> > > 1. Conditional compilation
> > > 2. Macro definitions with only a single character
> > > 3. Macro definitions as (0) and (1)
> > >
> > > Before this patch:
> > > sjc@sjc:linux$ ./scripts/macro_checker.py fs | wc -l
> > > 99
> > >
> > > After this patch:
> > > sjc@sjc:linux$ ./scripts/macro_checker.py fs | wc -l
> > > 11
> > >
> > > Most of the current warnings are valid now.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Julian Sun <sunjunchao2870@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ...
> > > def file_check_macro(file_path, report):
> > > + # number of conditional compiling
> > > + cond_compile = 0
> > > # only check .c and .h file
> > > if not file_path.endswith(".c") and not file_path.endswith(".h"):
> > > return
> > > @@ -57,7 +72,14 @@ def file_check_macro(file_path, report):
> > > while True:
> > > line = f.readline()
> > > if not line:
> > > - return
> > > + break
> > > + line = line.strip()
> > > + if line.startswith(cond_compile_mark):
> > > + cond_compile += 1
> > > + continue
> > > + if line.startswith(cond_compile_end):
> > > + cond_compile -= 1
> > > + continue
> > >
> > > macro = re.match(macro_pattern, line)
> > > if macro:
> > > @@ -67,6 +89,11 @@ def file_check_macro(file_path, report):
> > > macro = macro.strip()
> > > macro += f.readline()
> > > macro = macro_strip(macro)
> > > + if file_path.endswith(".c") and cond_compile != 0:
> > > + continue
> > > + # 1 is for #ifdef xxx at the beginning of the header file
> > > + if file_path.endswith(".h") and cond_compile != 1:
> > > + continue
> > > check_macro(macro, report)
> > >
> > > def get_correct_macros(path):
> >
> >
> > > So I don't think this is right. As far as I understand this skips any macros
> > > that are conditionally defined? Why? There is a lot of them and checking
> > > them is beneficial... The patterns you have added should be dealing with
> > > most of the conditional defines anyway.
> Yes, this skips all checks for conditional macro. This is because I
> observed that almost all false positives come from conditional
> compilation. Testing showed that skipping them does not cause the
> genuine warnings to disappear.
> Also as you said, it may still lead to skipping checks for genuinely
> problematic macro definitions. Perhaps we could provide an option that
> allows users to control whether or not to check macros under
> conditional compilation?
Yes, that could be useful.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR
