Re: [PATCH 1/1] scripts/coccinelle/misc: add swap.cocci

[Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>]

Hmm, I do get more unused variable warnings than expected.  I will have to 
look into it.

julia

On Sun, 31 May 2015, Julia Lawall wrote:

> I propose the extended version below (not currently coccicheck friendly).  
> the extra features are:
> 
> 1.  The original version requires i1 and i2 to be identifiers, eg x and y.  
> This doesn't address the case where they are terms line x->a or x[b].  The 
> fact that the original code contains assignments with both i1 and i2 on 
> the left hand side is enough to ensure that they are appropriate arguments 
> for swap.  So they can be changed to expression metavariables.
> 
> 2. The original patch rule always removed the tmp variable.  This is not 
> valid if the tmp variable is used for something else.  The new semantic 
> patch separates the introduction of swap (rule r) from the removal of the 
> variable declaration (rule ok and the one folowing).  The rule ok checks 
> that this is a function containing an introduced call to swap, and then 
> the rule after removes the declaration if the variable is not used for 
> anything else.  Note that the name of the tmp variable is remembered in 
> the invalid three-argument version of sawp.  This is then cleaned up in 
> the rule below.
> 
> 3. The original patch always removed the initialization of the tmp 
> variable.  Actually, some code uses the tmp variable afterwards to refer 
> to the old value.  In the new semantic patch, the first set of rules 
> considers the cases where the tmp variable is not used, and the last rule 
> is for the case where the tmp variable is stll needed.  No cleaning up of 
> the declaration is needed in that case.
> 
> There is one regression as compared to the original semantic patch: In the
> file lib/mpi/mpi-pow.c, the temporary variable is not needed after the 
> change, but it is also not removed.  It is declared within a loop, and 
> Coccinelle does not realize that it is not needed afterwards, because it 
> is needed on subsequent loop iterations.  Trying to adjust the semantic 
> patch to address this issue made it much slower and didn't fix the 
> problem.  Perhaps it is easier to rely on gcc to give an unused variable 
> warning, and to clean it up then.
> 
> Fabian, if you are o with this, do you want to sgenify it ans submit a new 
> patch?
> 
> thanks,
> julia
> 
> // it may be possible to remove the tmp variable
> 
> @r@
> expression i1, i2, E;
> identifier tmp;
> @@
> 
> - tmp = i1;
> - i1 = i2;
> - i2 = tmp;
> + swap(i1, i2, tmp);
>   ... when != tmp
> ? tmp = E
> 
> @ok exists@
> type t1;
> identifier r.tmp;
> expression i1,i2;
> position p;
> @@
> 
> t1@p tmp;
> ...
> swap(i1, i2, tmp);
> 
> @@
> expression i1,i2;
> identifier tmp;
> type t1;
> position ok.p;
> @@
> 
> -t1@p tmp;
>  <... when strict
>       when != tmp
>  swap(i1, i2, tmp);
>  ...>
> 
> @depends on r@
> expression i1,i2;
> identifier tmp;
> @@
> 
> swap(i1,i2
> - ,tmp
>  )
> 
> // tmp variable still needed
> 
> @@
> expression i1, i2;
> identifier tmp;
> @@
> 
>   tmp = i1;
> - i1 = i2;
> - i2 = tmp;
> + swap(i1, i2);
>