[Another exchange that got droped from @devel] Gary said: > I'm not a fan of suppressing warnings. Especially one I agree with.
Right. But I don't agree with this one and I consider your suggested fix to be too ugly. It's doubling the size of the relevant code block and makes it harder to understand what's going on. We currently have 28 places that squish Coverity warnings. Several are reminding us that random() isn't good enough for crypto. We could get rid of n-1 of them by calling a subroutine. It would be neat to double check them and see how many are still needed and/or update the comment with a Coverity number. I don't know my way around Coverity and/or gitlab very well. Can somebody give me a quick lesson. How do I clone our code, make my changes, then get Coverity to run on my new code? -- These are my opinions. I hate spam. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@ntpsec.org https://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
