Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] cocci: add and apply a rule to find "unused" variables

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jun 22, 2022, 16:02 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqsfnw65zu.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <patch-v2-1.2-d14036521ab-20220621T223954Z-avarab@gmail.com>

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason  <avarab@gmail.com> writes:

> +identifier INIT_ASSIGN1 =~ "^get_worktrees$";
> +// strbuf_init(&I, ...) etc.
> +identifier INIT_CALL1 =~ "^[a-z_]*_init$";
> +// stbuf_release(), string_list_clear() etc.

strbuf?

> +identifier REL1 =~ "^[a-z_]*_(release|clear|free)$";
> +// release_patch(), clear_pathspec() etc.
> +identifier REL2 =~ "^(release|clear|free)_[a-z_]*$";
> +@@

I am hesitant to see this broad set of patterns that could match init/release functions (and possible false positive matches).

Especially given that it ended up finding only 4 instances, all of the same "STRBUF_INIT" followed by "strbuf_release()", which means that all other possible matches, when they actually are found, will be seen by developers who are not necessarily familiar with these rules before they are inspected by those who are for correctness.

It would be nice to have a step that catch only strbuf_init(), STRBUF_INIT, strbuf_release(), and nothing else, possibly with another step with concrete function names, with other "presumably functions whose name match this loose pattern are all release functions" patterns in a separate follow-up patch so that the last one can easily be reverted.

Show 7 quoted lines

> +// .. A declaration like "struct strbuf buf;"...
> +(
> +- T I;
> +// ... or "struct STRBUF buf = STRBUF_INIT;" ...
> +|
> +- T I = INIT;
> +)

Presumably, if either of the above followed by foo_release(I) should be caught, then we should catch "T I = { 0 };" followed by a release as well. Initialization "T I = { 1, };" for a type without _INIT macro is also the same story.

Given that, do we even need to limit the forms of declaration? The only thing we care about is that I is new in this scope, and I is not used otherwise, in a way other than (1) calling _init() function on it, or (2) calling _release() function on it, before leaving the scope, right?

Thanks.