Sorry, I think the Andy thing was the gmail client auto-filling contacts when I
reply all...
On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 9:20 AM, Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> It's a single line sscanf vs multi-line sscanf issue
>
> $line works on
> ret = sscanf(buf, &foo, &bar);
>
> $stat works on that and
> ret = sscanf(buf,
> &foo,
> &bar);
>
Ah, ok. I dont think having just the ending paren will work though because the
paren can be on the next line, so the pre-patch statement is most correct.
What we should do, then, is something like:
[snip]
$line =~ /\bsscanf\b/ &&
- ($stat !~ /$Ident\s*=\s*sscanf\s*$balanced_parens/ &&
+ ($stat =~ /\bsscanf\b\s*$balanced_parens/ &&
+ $stat !~ /$Ident\s*=\s*sscanf\s*$balanced_parens/ &&
$stat !~ /\bsscanf\s*$balanced_parens\s*(?:$Compare)/ &&
$stat !~ /(?:$Compare)\s*\bsscanf\s*$balanced_parens/)) {
[snip]
That way, we know we are evaluating a sscanf on the current line, but also
ensure that it is a function call in the current statement.
Would this work? It seems to on my end.
I can send over the amended patch.
- Kevin
--
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
