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.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR
