True, I forgot that. However, it's probably useful for the static analyzer to consider it noreturn for analysis purposes.
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 7:32 PM, Alp Toker <[email protected]> wrote: > _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
