Re: [cocci] [PATCH 2/2] scripts: coccicheck: Separate spatch stdout and stderr

[Anton Eliasson]

On 07/10/2023 21.41, Julia Lawall wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Oct 2023, Anton Eliasson wrote:
>
> > This helps automating coccicheck runs by discarding stderr and only
> > looking at the output of stdout. In report mode the only remaining
> > output on stdout is the initial "Please check for false positives"
> > message followed by each spatch warning found.
> What is getting dropped is the spatch command lines indicating the
> semantic patch.  Is this desirable?
>
> julia
It's not ideal but it's the best compromise that I have found. The 
problem I'm trying to solve is to be able to diff the output of two 
coccicheck runs and notify the developer if any new warnings were 
introduced. That requires the output to be stable. spatch is always 
invoked for each cocci file in the same order. However, the output from 
each spatch invocation is not stable as it examines each source file in 
an arbitrary order.

My workaround is to sort the output before diffing. The line-by-line 
sorted output only makes sense if the input is one line per warning 
found and that is why I try to discard all output except the single line 
per spatch warning. While the terse output doesn't tell which semantic 
patch file generated the warning, it does usually contain the offending 
file, line number and a summary of the issue.


Anton
> > Signed-off-by: Anton Eliasson <anton.eliasson@xxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   scripts/coccicheck | 4 ++--
> >   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/scripts/coccicheck b/scripts/coccicheck
> > index 95a312730e98..7e7c44125f47 100755
> > --- a/scripts/coccicheck
> > +++ b/scripts/coccicheck
> > @@ -146,8 +146,8 @@ run_cmd_parmap() {
> >                   echo $@>>$DEBUG_FILE
> >                   $@ 2>>$DEBUG_FILE
> >           else
> > -                echo $@
> > -                $@ 2>&1
> > +                echo $@ >&2
> > +                $@
> >   	fi
> >
> >   	err=$?
> >
> > --
> > 2.30.2