вт, 26 мая 2020 г. в 12:02, Willy Tarreau <w...@1wt.eu>: > Hi Ilya, > > On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 03:47:58PM +0500, ???? ??????? wrote: > > From: Ilya Shipitsin <chipits...@gmail.com> > > Date: Sat, 23 May 2020 15:35:36 +0500 > > Subject: [PATCH] CLEANUP: src/checks.c: ignore return value using > DISGUISE(..) > > > > we do not want to check status of extchk_setenv, but static analyzsers > > like Coverity are not happy about it. Let calm coverity down. > > Are you really sure we don't want to check them ? I'm seeing that > prepare_external_check() uses EXTCHK_SETENV() to purposely add checks > there, so it's unclear to me why we want to silently fail here. Maybe > the calls should instead be changed to have a check and a jump to an > error label doing the exit(). > > I don't know if anyone has an opinion on this, I'm not using external > checks :-/ >
well, I meant to keep current behaviour, but also silence coverity warning. ok, we can investigate and discuss would it be better to change current behaviour or to keep it. > > Willy >
