On 25/09/16 16:17, SF Markus Elfring wrote:

quoted

It's not an inappropriate identifier as it stands. The point is
that it could be better.

Thanks for your interest in clarifying further improvement possibilities.

quoted

quoted

quoted

Which tool is spitting it out?

Are you looking for any special tool?

I was wondering how you identified these particular
issues as I wanted to know the logic behind the test.

Do you get any related ideas from information in a message like
"Source code review around jump label usage" (from 2015-12-11)?

https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/12/11/378
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/[off-list ref]

quoted

quoted

Which test do you mean?

Whatever you used to find these jump labels

There is a general possibility that dedicated scripts for the semantic
patch language can also adjust jump labels as I suggested it for five
functions in this software.

quoted

(the patch series description suggested it was a static checker).

The corresponding five patches are just a result of a source code review
by the means of a current text editor wit extra support for programming.

To my mind there is a divide between the cost of making changes like this
as a result of initial review and that of doing it on existing code.

I don't think this one is worth while for existing code.

How do you think about to improve the capabilities of tools for advanced
static source code analysis any further?

Regards,
Markus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html