On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 at 17:06, Eric Blake <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 1/18/19 10:50 AM, Peter Maydell wrote: > > In checkpatch we attempt to check for and warn about > > block comments which start with /* or /** followed by a > > non-blank. Unfortunately a bug in the regex meant that > > we would incorrectly warn about comments starting with > > "/**" with no following text: > > > > git show 9813dc6ac3954d58ba16b3920556f106f97e1c67|./scripts/checkpatch.pl > > - > > WARNING: Block comments use a leading /* on a separate line > > #34: FILE: tests/libqtest.h:233: > > +/** > > > > The sequence "/\*\*?" was intended to match either "/*" or "/**", > > but Perl's semantics for '?' allow it to backtrack and try the > > "matches 0 chars" option if the "matches 1 char" choice leads to > > a failure of the rest of the regex to match. Switch to "/\*\*?+" > > which uses what perlre(1) calls the "possessive" quantifier form: > > this means that if it matches the "/**" string it will not later > > backtrack to matching just the "/*" prefix. > > > > The other end of the regex is also wrong: it is attempting > > to check for "/* or /** followed by something that isn't > > just whitespace", but [ \t]*.+[ \t]* will match on pure > > whitespace. This is less significant but means that a line > > with just a comment-starter followed by trailing whitespace > > will generate an incorrect warning about block comment style > > as well as the correct error about trailing whitespace which > > a different checkpatch test emits. > > > > Fixes: 8c06fbdf36bf4d4d486116200248730887a4d7d6 > > > Reported-by: Thomas Huth <[email protected]> > > Reported-by: Eric Blake <[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <[email protected]> > > --- > > > # Block comments use /* on a line of its own > > if ($rawline !~ m@^\+.*/\*.*\*/[ \t]*$@ && #inline > > /*...*/ > > - $rawline =~ m@^\+.*/\*\*?[ \t]*.+[ \t]*$@) { # /* or /** > > non-blank > > + $rawline =~ m@^\+.*/\*\*?+[ \t]*[^ \t]@) { # /* or /** > > non-blank > > Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <[email protected]>
Thanks. I'll take this via target-arm.next, just for convenience... -- PMM
