[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: misc/49272 (Patching with Coccinelle?: Deletion of unnecessary checks before specific function calls)
The following reply was made to PR misc/49272; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring%web.de@localhost>
To: gnats-bugs%NetBSD.org@localhost, David Holland <dholland%NetBSD.org@localhost>
Cc: misc-bug-people%netbsd.org@localhost, netbsd-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost, gnats-admin%netbsd.org@localhost
Subject: Re: misc/49272 (Patching with Coccinelle?: Deletion of unnecessary
checks before specific function calls)
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 08:34:52 +0100
> There is at best lukewarm enthusiasm for this sort of change in NetBSD,
> because of the risks of breaking things by accident when massediting.
Such a generated patch can also be split into more pleasing pieces.
> Meanwhile, the fact that nobody has taken up this patch in two years is
> suggestive: probably nobody is going to, and without someone taking the
> time to crosscheck all the changes (not all the removed checks are in
> front of free() -- many are other functions that might or might not be
> null-safe a priori) and also fixing the places where the patches break
> indentation or other adverse consequences... without someone taking the
> time there is no realistic chance of this patch being useful.
It seems that you preferred to concentrate your software development
attention more on other components.
> Also, the patch is apparently against -6 and would need hand-merging.
I can repeat the shown update suggestion for newer source file versions
when the corresponding change acceptance will evolve a bit more as desired.
How do you think about to give another look to source code analysis results
from a similar approach?
Main Index |
Thread Index |