Perhaps following the eprintf() with
return NULL;
would inform the compiler correctly without changing the semantics of
the program. I worry if a smarter compiler would just warn about the
statement being unreachable though.
Warning cat-and-mouse is probably something to avoid.
- Simon
On 07/0
On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 02:04:52PM -0800, Evan Gates wrote:
> Hiltjo Posthuma wrote:
>
> > Probably a false positive, but for ed.c it looks ok to me.
> >
> > The join.c patch does not look ok to me (clang doesn't detect that
> > eprintf() exists the program), so it's a false positive.
>
> This
Hiltjo Posthuma wrote:
> Probably a false positive, but for ed.c it looks ok to me.
>
> The join.c patch does not look ok to me (clang doesn't detect that
> eprintf() exists the program), so it's a false positive.
This is where the _Noreturn or noreturn attribute is handy.
Unfortunately that's
list
Subject: Re: [hackers] [sbase][PATCH] Fixed a couple of uninitialised variable
warnings from Clang
Probably a false positive, but for ed.c it looks ok to me.
The join.c patch does not look ok to me (clang doesn't detect that
eprintf() exists the program), so it's a false positiv
Probably a false positive, but for ed.c it looks ok to me.
The join.c patch does not look ok to me (clang doesn't detect that
eprintf() exists the program), so it's a false positive.
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Simon Cooksey wrote:
> - ed.c
>Initialise hline in `static int makeline(char,
