@@ -12,6 +12,36 @@ constant fmt !~ "%";
)
);
+@@
+expression E;
+struct strbuf SB;
+format F =~ "s";
+@@
+- strbuf_addf(E, "%@F@", SB.buf);
++ strbuf_addbuf(E, &SB);
+
+@@
+expression E;
+struct strbuf *SBP;
+format F =~ "s";
+@@
+- strbuf_addf(E, "%@F@", SBP->buf);
++ strbuf_addbuf(E, SBP);
+
+@@
+expression E;
+struct strbuf SB;
+@@
+- strbuf_addstr(E, SB.buf);
++ strbuf_addbuf(E, &SB);
+
+@@
+expression E;
+struct strbuf *SBP;
+@@
+- strbuf_addstr(E, SBP->buf);
++ strbuf_addbuf(E, SBP);
+
@@
expression E1, E2;
format F =~ "s";
The best way to add one strbuf to an other is via: strbuf_addbuf(&sb, &sb2); This is a bit more idiomatic and efficient than: strbuf_addstr(&sb, sb2.buf); because the size of the second strbuf is known and thus it can spare a strlen() call, and much more so than: strbuf_addf(&sb, "%s", sb2.buf); because it can spare the whole vsnprintf() formatting magic. Add new semantic patches to 'contrib/coccinelle/strbuf.cocci' to catch these undesired patterns and to suggest strbuf_addbuf() instead. Luckily, our codebase is already clean from any such undesired patterns (but one of the in-flight topics just tried to sneak in such a strbuf_addf() call). Signed-off-by: SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@gmail.com> --- Inspired by: https://public-inbox.org/git/20190125112203.GB6702@szeder.dev/ contrib/coccinelle/strbuf.cocci | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+)