On 2019-02-02, Andrew C Aitchison via Exim-dev <exim-dev@exim.org> wrote: > On Sat, 2 Feb 2019, admin--- via Exim-dev wrote: > >> https://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2368 >> >> Jeremy Harris <jgh146...@wizmail.org> changed: >> >> What |Removed |Added >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Resolution|--- |WONTFIX >> Assignee|ni...@exim.org |jgh146...@wizmail.org >> Status|NEW |RESOLVED >> >> --- Comment #1 from Jeremy Harris <jgh146...@wizmail.org> --- >> This is a matter for choosing compiler switches to avoid doing such static >> analysis. We refuse to endlessly chase such things by using more-and-more >> convoluted coding. Even the cast-to-void could be regarded as such an >> attempt, but it least its heritage goes back over thirty years.
> This patch makes the code clearer, > and makes it explicit that we know what we are doing. > If it makes that the compiler happy at the same time, > then we can leave the switches set in a way that helps us avoid writing > new bugs. If the optimizer does not spot it you have code that wastes resources (albeit a small amount in this case). Also now you have two variables that are assigned a value which is not used: this is potentially another static analysis violation. (gcc would find that at optimisation level 2 last time I checked) casting the function result to void is the traditional way to silence the unused return value warnings: /* ignoring the return values here because nothing can be done if this fails */ (void) write(fd, process_info, process_info_len); (void) close(fd); -- When I tried casting out nines I made a hash of it. -- ## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-dev Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ##
