On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 21:49:41 -0500, Ethan Carter Edwards wrote:
> There is a possibility for an uninitialized *ret* variable to be
> returned in some code paths.
>
> This explicitly returns 0 without an error. Also removes goto that
> returned *ret* and simply returns in place.
>
>
> [...]
Ap
On 2/10/2025 6:49 PM, Ethan Carter Edwards wrote:
> There is a possibility for an uninitialized *ret* variable to be
> returned in some code paths.
>
> This explicitly returns 0 without an error. Also removes goto that
> returned *ret* and simply returns in place.
>
> Closes:
> https://scan5.sca
On 2/11/25 08:19, Ethan Carter Edwards wrote:
There is a possibility for an uninitialized*ret* variable to be
returned in some code paths.
This explicitly returns 0 without an error. Also removes goto that
returned*ret* and simply returns in place.
Closes:https://scan5.scan.coverity.com/#/proje
There is a possibility for an uninitialized *ret* variable to be
returned in some code paths.
This explicitly returns 0 without an error. Also removes goto that
returned *ret* and simply returns in place.
Closes:
https://scan5.scan.coverity.com/#/project-view/63541/10063?selectedIssue=1642337
Fi
