Re: Using coccinelle for (quick?) syntax fixing

[Jean-Yves Migeon <jeanyves.migeon%free.fr@localhost>]

On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 12:11:32 -0500, Eric Haszlakiewicz 
<erh%nimenees.com@localhost>
wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 10:49:05PM +0200, Jean-Yves Migeon wrote:
>> Note also that I applied the spatch against sys/; the rest of src could
>> get a scan. But I would prefer to look for other static analyzers
first,
>> perhaps there are more suitable (and faster) ones.
> 
> If you're talking about static analyzers, wouldn't coverity count? 

Yes

$ cd /usr/pkgsrc/*/coverity/                                              
ksh: cd: /usr/pkgsrc/*/coverity - No such file or directory

:(

> I haven't actually used Coccinelle, just read about it, but it seems
like
> it's a tool for modifying the sources, rather than finding the problems
> in the first place, and trying to make it do the latter sounds
difficult.

Not "difficult"; in these examples, it is just plain overkill: a decent
static analyzer is likely to catch them.

Coccinelle is rather a tool to simplify code overhaul, something you
cannot do with coverity-like things. I will give a more concrete example
with my kvm(3) patch for 64 bits paddr_t and i386, but it is not ready yet.

-- 
Jean-Yves Migeon
jeanyves.migeon%free.fr@localhost