Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH] coccinelle: check for integer overflow in binary search | From | Markus Elfring <> | Date | Thu, 5 Sep 2019 14:32:54 +0200 |
| |
> +identifier l, h, m;
Can expressions make sense for these metavariables?
> +@@ > +( > + while (\(l < h\|l <= h\|(h - l) > 1\|(l + 1) < h\|l < (h - 1)\)) { > + ... > +( > + ((l + h)@p / c) > +| > + ((l + h)@p >> c) > +) > + ... > + }
* I suggest again to look at further possibilities to reduce undesirable code duplication also together with the usage of SmPL disjunctions.
* The condition specification might be easier to read with a few additional spaces (or the following variant).
* The SmPL ellipses will probably need further considerations.
+@@ +( + while ( +( l \( < \| <= \) h +| (h - l) > 1 +| (h - 1) > l +| (l + 1) < h +) ) + { + <+... + ((l + h)@p \( / \| >> \) c) + ...+> + }
> +@script:python depends on report@ > +p << r.p; > +@@ > + > +msg="WARNING: custom implementation of bsearch is error-prone. " > +msg+="Consider using lib/bsearch.c or fix the midpoint calculation " > +msg+="as 'm = l + (h - l) / 2;' to prevent the arithmetic overflow." > +coccilib.report.print_report(p[0], msg)
The Linux coding style supports to put a long string literal also into a single line. Thus I find such a message construction nicer without the extra variable “msg”.
Regards, Markus
| |