The <id> in the <rulename> part of the coccinelle syntax[1] is for our
purposes there to declares if we have inter-dependencies between
different rules.
But such <id>'s must be unique within a given semantic patch file. As
we'll be processing a concatenated version of our rules in the
subsequent commit let's remove these names. They weren't being used
for the semantic patches themselves, and equated to a short comment
about the rule.
Both the filename and context of the rules makes it clear what they're
doing, so we're not gaining anything from keeping these. Retaining
them goes against recommendations that "contrib/coccinelle/README"
will be making in the subsequent commit.
This leaves only one named rule in our sources, where it's needed for
a "<id> <-> <extends> <id>" relationship:
$ git -P grep '^@ ' -- contrib/coccinelle/
contrib/coccinelle/swap.cocci:@ swap @
contrib/coccinelle/swap.cocci:@ extends swap @
1. https://coccinelle.gitlabpages.inria.fr/website/docs/main_grammar.html
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
It is more common to use post-increment than pre-increment when the
side effect is the primary thing we want in our code and in C in
general (unlike C++).
Initializing a variable to 0, incrementing it every time we do
something, and checking if we have already done that thing to guard
the code to do that thing, is easier to understand when written
if (u++)
; /* we've done that! */
else
do_it(); /* just once. */
but if you try to use pre-increment, you end up with a less natural
looking
if (++u > 1)
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
