On Tue, 10 Oct 2023, Anton Eliasson wrote:
On 07/10/2023 21.41, Julia Lawall wrote:Why does the command line pose a problem for sorting?
On Tue, 3 Oct 2023, Anton Eliasson wrote:It's not ideal but it's the best compromise that I have found. The problem I'm
This helps automating coccicheck runs by discarding stderr and onlyWhat is getting dropped is the spatch command lines indicating the
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.
semantic patch. Is this desirable?
julia
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.
julia
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