Re: [PATCH] objtool: drop redundant flags generation

[Masami Hiramatsu]

On Tue, 7 Mar 2017 08:13:19 +0000
Nicholas Mc Guire <der.herr@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 03:40:54PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 05:54:01PM +0000, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 11:25:37AM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > > >  arch/x86/tools/gen-insn-attr-x86.awk              | 12 ++++++++++--
> > > > >  tools/objtool/arch/x86/insn/gen-insn-attr-x86.awk | 12 ++++++++++--
> > > > 
> > > > There's actually a third copy of the decoder in:
> > > > 
> > > >   tools/perf/util/intel-pt-decoder/
> > > > 
> > > > Yes, the duplication is a pain, but it's part of an effort to keep
> > > > 'tools/*' source independent from kernel code.
> > > > 
> > > > Maybe we can at least combine the objtool and perf versions someday.
> > > >
> > > Bad - missed that one - did not build perf - the generator seems to
> > > be the same though only differing by a single blank line - so pulling 
> > > those together should be a non-issue atleast with respect to the 
> > > generator as the x86-opcode-map.txt are all the same ? ...or what 
> > > fun am I missing ?
> > 
> > In theory, all three copies of the decoder should be identical.  That
> > includes all the files: insn.[ch], inat.[ch], inat_types.h,
> > gen-insn-attr-x86.awk, x86-opcode-map.txt.
> >
> Understood - but this is a different problem that is being
> addressed with this cleanup - the duplicates make no sense in
> any case as far as I can see - with or without consolidation of
> the other files (and x86-opcode-map.txt does seem to be the
> same in all 3 cases) - the point was that it is causing a quite
> large number of coccicheck warnings which are iritating and
> in this case easy to remove.

Why would you apply coccinelle to auto-generated code?
I recommend you to change coccicheck to avoid checking
auto-generated code first.

Thank you,


-- 
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx>