_wassert can emit a warning and return control depending on the flag / dialog input, no?
Alp. On 12/11/2013 00:55, Reid Kleckner wrote: > Seems reasonable, but can you add a test? > > > On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Anders Montonen > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Microsoft's library headers do not annotate _wassert as being a > noreturn function, causing analyzer false positives. Fix by adding > it to NoReturnFunctionChecker's list of known noreturn functions. > > -a > > diff --git > a/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/NoReturnFunctionChecker.cpp > b/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/NoReturnFunctionChecker.cpp > index d7a880c..1367021 100644 > --- a/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/NoReturnFunctionChecker.cpp > +++ b/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/NoReturnFunctionChecker.cpp > @@ -64,6 +64,7 @@ void > NoReturnFunctionChecker::checkPostCall(const CallEvent &CE, > .Case("assfail", true) > .Case("db_error", true) > .Case("__assert", true) > + .Case("_wassert", true) > .Case("__assert_rtn", true) > .Case("__assert_fail", true) > .Case("dtrace_assfail", true) > _______________________________________________ > cfe-commits mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits > > > > > _______________________________________________ > cfe-commits mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits -- http://www.nuanti.com the browser experts _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
