Message ID | 1521114316-19980-1-git-send-email-suhang16@mails.ucas.ac.cn (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | New, archived |
Headers | show |
On 15 March 2018 at 11:45, Su Hang <suhang16@mails.ucas.ac.cn> wrote: > Bug fix: checkpatch.pl stops complaining about following pattern: > """ > do { > //do somethins; > } while (conditions); > """ > > Two things need to be mentioned: > 1) Before I casue this bug, checkpatch.pl will raise a wrong > complain: > """ > ERROR: braces {} are necessary even for single statement blocks > + for (i == 0; i < 0; ++i) > + { > + ; > + } else > """ This is a bit of an odd example -- for() loops don't take "else" clauses, so what is the 'else' doing here? (Also, for QEMU style the "{" should be on the same line as the for(), not on a line of its own.) thanks -- PMM
Sorry about inappropriate example, what I want to express is, when checkpatch.pl find pattern like this: """ for (i = 0; i < 0; ++i) { ; } """ It should raise """ ERROR: that open brace { should be on the previous line #4: FILE: test.c:4: + for (i = 0; i < 0; ++i) + { """ Instead of: """ ERROR: braces {} are necessary even for single statement blocks #4: FILE: test.c:4: + for (i = 0; i < 0; ++i) + { + ; + } """ > -----Original Messages----- > From: "Peter Maydell" <peter.maydell@linaro.org> > Sent Time: 2018-03-15 19:50:55 (Thursday) > To: "Su Hang" <suhang16@mails.ucas.ac.cn> > Cc: "Eric Blake" <eblake@redhat.com>, "Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy" <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>, "QEMU Developers" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org> > Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH RFC] scripts/checkpatch.pl: Bug fix > > On 15 March 2018 at 11:45, Su Hang <suhang16@mails.ucas.ac.cn> wrote: > > Bug fix: checkpatch.pl stops complaining about following pattern: > > """ > > do { > > //do somethins; > > } while (conditions); > > """ > > > > Two things need to be mentioned: > > 1) Before I casue this bug, checkpatch.pl will raise a wrong > > complain: > > """ > > ERROR: braces {} are necessary even for single statement blocks > > + for (i == 0; i < 0; ++i) > > + { > > + ; > > + } else > > """ > > This is a bit of an odd example -- for() loops don't > take "else" clauses, so what is the 'else' doing here? > > (Also, for QEMU style the "{" should be on the same line as the for(), > not on a line of its own.) > > thanks > -- PMM
diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl index d1fe79bcc47c..2ca833f22e5a 100755 --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl @@ -2355,6 +2355,18 @@ sub process { # check for missing bracing around if etc if ($line =~ /(^.*)\b(?:if|while|for)\b/ && $line !~ /\#\s*if/) { + my $allowed = 0; + + # Check the pre-context. + if ($line =~ /(\}.*?)$/) { + my $pre = $1; + + if ($line !~ /else/) { + print "APW: ALLOWED: pre<$pre> line<$line>\n" + if $dbg_adv_apw; + $allowed = 1; + } + } my ($level, $endln, @chunks) = ctx_statement_full($linenr, $realcnt, 1); if ($dbg_adv_apw) { @@ -2363,7 +2375,6 @@ sub process { if $#chunks >= 1; } if ($#chunks >= 0 && $level == 0) { - my $allowed = 0; my $seen = 0; my $herectx = $here . "\n"; my $ln = $linenr - 1; @@ -2407,7 +2418,7 @@ sub process { $allowed = 1; } } - if ($seen != ($#chunks + 1)) { + if ($seen != ($#chunks + 1) && !$allowed) { ERROR("braces {} are necessary for all arms of this statement\n" . $herectx); } }
Bug fix: checkpatch.pl stops complaining about following pattern: """ do { //do somethins; } while (conditions); """ Two things need to be mentioned: 1) Before I casue this bug, checkpatch.pl will raise a wrong complain: """ ERROR: braces {} are necessary even for single statement blocks + for (i == 0; i < 0; ++i) + { + ; + } else """ In this patch, this wrong complain get fixed. 2) Becasue all(`if`, `while`, `for`) check have been done in this `if` block(Line: 2356), and this block contains following statement: """ Line: 2379 $suppress_ifbraces{$ln + $offset} = 1; """ So the block after this block may never run: """ Line: 2415 if (!defined $suppress_ifbraces{$linenr - 1} && $line =~ /\b(if|while|for|else)\b/ && $line !~ /\#\s*if/ && $line !~ /\#\s*else/) { """ But I think, maybe it's ok, becasue all check has been done by up block. I'm not sure, please give me some advice. Signed-off-by: Su Hang <suhang16@mails.ucas.ac.cn> --- scripts/checkpatch.pl | 15 +++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) -- 2.7.4