On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 10:08:09AM -0800, Brian Norris wrote: > On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 06:23:06PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 03:54:18PM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > I think it's a false positive. There seems to be a function call in each > > > ||. The name suggests that a different read value is tested each time. > > > > > > julia > > > > > > > Oh, yeah. You're right. > > Yeah, I ran coccinelle myself when I merged the patches, and I noticed > the false postives. Any way to include a good heuristic to prevent this > type? >
We could modify the check to ignore conditions with side effects. We would silence false positives but maybe some real bugs as well. My feeling is that false positives aren't so bad. These emails are a one time thing. regards, dan carpenter _______________________________________________ kbuild mailing list kbuild@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/kbuild
