* John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070402 05:30] wrote: > > There are several cases where Coverity gets something wrong (e.g. the > > use of TAILQ). I did mark those as invalid in Coverity (until either > > we get a new version of Coverity which understands this, or someone > > writes a model of the TAILQ stuff for Coverity, or until someone tells > > me to mark them as false positives). I did this because I don't know > > how to fix this in our code _and_ I see no benefit in fixing this in > > our code just to make Coverity not moan. For the void cast we are > > talking about I see a benefit. Coverity can count this as "the return > > value of this function is checked". As such a report is only generated > > if a specific percentage of the use of a function is handled this way, > > it is important if we want to get reports for this. And we want to get > > reports for functions where the return value typically has to be > > checked. > > There is previous history of casting a function's return value to (void) to > please lint(1). Just look for '(void)printf' :) Coverity at least is > smarter than lint as it doesn't warn about printf not being checked.
I always found the (void)intfunction() stuff in code to be particulary exciting. -- - Alfred Perlstein _______________________________________________ cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
