On Mon, 22 Apr 2019 at 23:53, Michael D Kinney <michael.d.kin...@intel.com> wrote: > > Ard, > > This seems to be a common limitation seen in some > static analyzers. We have not found a workaround > that does not involve code changes to quiet the > false positives. > > For this specific case, I think the code change I > suggest is correct. >
I agree that the change is correct, and isn't that intrusive in this particular case, so I don't have any objections to it. I was just thinking aloud whether the IN vs OUT modifiers could be put to use here. There are some examples in Linux of the patten #ifdef __CHECKER__ #define ... #else #define ... #endif where __CHECKER__ is only set by the 'sparse' tool, which is basically a combination of a static checker with a more pedantic coding style checker. I guess in our case, we'dl have to cater for multiple build environments and more than one static checker, so this is probably not as easy to achieve, unfortunately. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#39374): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/39374 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/31271609/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
