On 07/17/2014 03:00 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Bernhard Voelker
> <m...@bernhard-voelker.de> wrote:
>> case 'h':
>> (*usage_func) (EXIT_SUCCESS);
>> + exit (EXIT_SUCCESS);
>
> Does that elicit a dead-code warning, when some static analysis
> tool notices the statement after an always-"noreturn" function call?
Good point.
Unfortunately, it's not possible to run the online coverity analysis
too often, so I went with the following ...
> What do you think about adding the noreturn attribute to the
> declaration of the usage_func parameter?
I added "_Noreturn" like this:
diff --git a/lib/long-options.c b/lib/long-options.c
index fa7d1cd..0af7c0d 100644
--- a/lib/long-options.c
+++ b/lib/long-options.c
@@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ parse_long_options (int argc,
const char *command_name,
const char *package,
const char *version,
- void (*usage_func) (int),
+ _Noreturn void (*usage_func) (int),
/* const char *author1, ...*/ ...)
{
int c;
diff --git a/lib/long-options.h b/lib/long-options.h
index a44ae2e..18ad6d6 100644
--- a/lib/long-options.h
+++ b/lib/long-options.h
@@ -22,5 +22,5 @@ void parse_long_options (int _argc,
const char *_command_name,
const char *_package,
const char *_version,
- void (*_usage) (int),
+ _Noreturn void (*_usage) (int),
/* const char *author1, ...*/ ...);
but coverity seems to ignore it, and still complains about
the fall-through.
So I wonder if I shall go another loop with the initial exit()
approach to see if there's a dead-code warning then.
(Due to restrictions of the free coverity scan I have to wait
another 24 hours for the next run.)
Thank you both & have a nice day,
Berny
