> On Apr 22, 2019, at 3:02 PM, Ard Biesheuvel <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2019 at 23:53, Michael D Kinney
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Ard,
>>
>> This seems to be a common limitation seen in some
>> static analyzers. We have not found a workaround
>> that does not involve code changes to quiet the
>> false positives.
>>
>> For this specific case, I think the code change I
>> suggest is correct.
>>
>
> I agree that the change is correct, and isn't that intrusive in this
> particular case, so I don't have any objections to it.
>
> I was just thinking aloud whether the IN vs OUT modifiers could be put
> to use here. There are some examples in Linux of the patten
>
> #ifdef __CHECKER__
> #define ...
> #else
> #define ...
> #endif
>
> where __CHECKER__ is only set by the 'sparse' tool, which is basically
> a combination of a static checker with a more pedantic coding style
> checker.
>
> I guess in our case, we'dl have to cater for multiple build
> environments and more than one static checker, so this is probably not
> as easy to achieve, unfortunately.
>
Ard,
This would be a really good item to put on our longer term list of
enhancements.
Thanks,
Andrew Fish
>
>
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#39379): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/39379
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/31271609/21656
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
