Yo Hal!
On Tue, 05 Dec 2023 20:40:46 -0800
Hal Murray via devel wrote:
> I expect the comment on the previous line to tell Coverity to not
> complain about this case.
>
> Is there a typo or such that I'm missing?
>
> 149/* coverity[checked_return] */
> CID 462307 (#1 of 1): Unchecked
Hal Murray via devel writes:
> I expect the comment on the previous line to tell Coverity to not complain
> about this case.
>
> Is there a typo or such that I'm missing?
>
> 149/* coverity[checked_return] */
> CID 462307 (#1 of 1): Unchecked return value (CHECKED_RETURN)
> 15. check_r
James said:
> Maybe we should add -Werror or such to CFLAGS.
Sounds like a good idea to me.
--
These are my opinions. I hate spam.
___
devel mailing list
devel@ntpsec.org
https://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Dec 5, 2023 23:45, Hal Murray via devel wrote:
Does that mean no warnings?
No errors slipped past any nets in their way.If not, how are we expected to learn about code that generates warnings on
obscure systems?Maybe we should add -Werror or such to CFLAGS. The most obscure system tested i
