On Mon, 12 Sep 2016, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 04:43:58PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote:

quoted

Hi,

Jarkko Sakkinen [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:54:07AM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:

quoted

On Sun, 11 Sep 2016, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:

quoted

On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 03:05:42PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:

quoted

Constify local structures.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:
(http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/)

Just my two cents but:

1. You *can* use a static analysis too to find bugs or other issues.
2. However, you should manually do the commits and proper commit
   messages to subsystems based on your findings. And I generally think
   that if one contributes code one should also at least smoke test changes
   somehow.

I don't know if I'm alone with my opinion. I just think that one should
also do the analysis part and not blindly create and submit patches.

All of the patches are compile tested.  And the individual patches are

Compile-testing is not testing. If you are not able to test a commit,
you should explain why.

Dude, Julia has been doing semantic patching for years already and
nobody has raised any concerns so far. There's already an expectation
that Coccinelle *works* and Julia's sematic patches are sound.

Besides, adding 'const' is something that causes virtually no functional
changes to the point that build-testing is really all you need. Any
problems caused by adding 'const' to a definition will be seen by build
errors or warnings.

Really, just stop with the pointless discussion and go read a bit about
Coccinelle and what semantic patches are giving you. The work done by
Julia and her peers are INRIA have measurable benefits.

You're really making a thunderstorm in a glass of water.

Hmm... I've been using coccinelle in cyclic basis for some time now.
My comment was oversized but I didn't mean it to be impolite or attack
of any kind for that matter.

No problem :)  Thanks for the feedback.

julia