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