Re: [PATCH v1] Travis: also test on 32-bit Linux

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Mar 10, 2017, 20:13 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqfuikyjoo.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <04f4849c-e1e0-f0ac-5b1e-10a343391db4@web.de>

René Scharfe <l.s.r@web.de> writes:

Show 5 quoted lines

>> I think this misses the other two cases: (*dst, src) and (*dst, *src).
>
> ... and that's why I left them out.  You can't get dst vs. *dst wrong
> with structs (at least not without the compiler complaining); only
> safe transformations are included in this round.

I haven't followed this discussion to the end, but the omission of 2 out of obvious 4 did pique my curiosity when I saw it, too, and made me wonder if the omission was deliberate. If so, it would be nice to state why in the log message (or in copy.cocci file itself as a comment).

It also made me wonder if we would be helped with a further combinatorial explosion from "T **dstp, **srcp" and somesuch (in other words, I am wondering why a rule for 'T *src' that uses '*src' need to be spelled out separately when there already is a good rule for 'T src' that uses 'src'---is that an inherent restriction of the tool?).