On Wed, 16 Sep 2015, Andrzej Hajda wrote: > On 09/15/2015 03:57 PM, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 15 Sep 2015, Andrzej Hajda wrote: > > > >> On 09/15/2015 03:31 PM, Julia Lawall wrote: > >>> On Tue, 15 Sep 2015, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > >>> > >>>>>> v@p > >>>>>> ( > >>>>>> *< 0 > >>>>>> | > >>>>>> *<= 0 > >>>>>> ) > >>>>> It does not, and is not intended to, work. The branches of a disjunction > >>>>> should be complete expressions. > >>>> Will the following SmPL approach be more appropriate then? > >>>> > >>>> ( > >>>> *v@p < 0 > >>>> | > >>>> *v@p <= 0 > >>>> ) > >>> Actually, all of > >>> > >>> v < 0 (never true) > >>> v <= 0 (same as v == 0) > >>> v >= 0 (always true) > >>> > >>> would seem to merit attention. Andrzej, what do you think? > >> > >> You are right, the 2nd case should be also addressed, > >> such code is misleading. > >> I will prepare then 2nd version of the patch. > > > > It could be reasonable to change the options to --all-includes? Although > > it could be somewhat slow. > > I have tested the patch with 'v <= 0', it spotted hundreds places with this > check. It seems to be quite common practice to use such checks with counters, > iterators, quantities, range checking. In fact it is negation of 'v > 0' which > seems to be acceptable even if it really means 'v != 0'. So maybe we should not > warn about it? What do you think? It seems a bit sloppy, but since the test does have some meaning, maybe it is OK. > On the other side it spotted also real bugs, but maybe I can make separate, more > specific test for such cases. OK, thanks. julia -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
