On Fri, 3 Aug 2018, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 5:24 AM, Finn Thain <fthain@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, 2 Aug 2018, zhong jiang wrote: > > > >> The same check condition is redundant, so remove one of them. > >> > > > > If you are trying to find redundant code, your coccinelle script is > > dangerously flawed. > > These days too many coccinelle helpers make people think they are > doing right "clean ups" when in the practice they bring the > regressions. > > Julia, is possible by coccinelle to distinguish memory accesses versus > I/O? At least it would increase robustness in some cases. With make coccicheck, the semantic patch should already emit the warning: //# A common source of false positives is when the argument performs a side //# effect. I can modify the rule so that it doesn't report on code that involves function calls. It could lose some desirable warnings, where the function call is just a wrapper for eg extracting some field, but it is probably safer in practice. julia
