Den 29/11/2012 kl. 13.01 skrev Konstantin Belousov kostik...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 05:16:50AM +, Eitan Adler wrote:
Author: eadler
Date: Thu Nov 29 05:16:50 2012
New Revision: 243665
URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/243665
Log:
Mark non-returning function
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 05:16:50AM +, Eitan Adler wrote:
Author: eadler
Date: Thu Nov 29 05:16:50 2012
New Revision: 243665
URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/243665
Log:
Mark non-returning function as such
PR: bin/172978
Approved by:cperciva
On 29 November 2012 07:01, Konstantin Belousov kostik...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 05:16:50AM +, Eitan Adler wrote:
Author: eadler
Date: Thu Nov 29 05:16:50 2012
New Revision: 243665
URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/243665
Log:
Mark non-returning function
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 07:45:12AM -0500, Eitan Adler wrote:
On 29 November 2012 07:01, Konstantin Belousov kostik...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 05:16:50AM +, Eitan Adler wrote:
Author: eadler
Date: Thu Nov 29 05:16:50 2012
New Revision: 243665
URL:
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 02:01:47PM +0200, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
Also, being quite removed from the function definition, there is a chance
that some future modification would make the attribute a lie.
At least clang enforces the correctness of the attribute.
Joerg
On 29 November 2012 08:04, Konstantin Belousov kostik...@gmail.com wrote:
It fixes some static analyzer warnings.
This cannot be a reason to cripple the code.
How is the code crippled?
--
Eitan Adler
Source, Ports, Doc committer
Bugmeister, Ports Security teams
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 02:01:47PM +0200, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 05:16:50AM +, Eitan Adler wrote:
Author: eadler
Date: Thu Nov 29 05:16:50 2012
New Revision: 243665
URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/243665
Log:
Mark non-returning function
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 05:24:12PM +0100, Jilles Tjoelker wrote:
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 02:01:47PM +0200, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 05:16:50AM +, Eitan Adler wrote:
Author: eadler
Date: Thu Nov 29 05:16:50 2012
New Revision: 243665
URL:
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 10:15:54AM -0500, Eitan Adler wrote:
On 29 November 2012 08:04, Konstantin Belousov kostik...@gmail.com wrote:
It fixes some static analyzer warnings.
This cannot be a reason to cripple the code.
How is the code crippled?
I described it in the part of the first
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 05:24:12PM +0100, Jilles Tjoelker wrote:
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 02:01:47PM +0200, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 05:16:50AM +, Eitan Adler wrote:
Log:
Mark non-returning function as such
On 29 November 2012 15:57, Konstantin Belousov kostik...@gmail.com wrote:
IMO, such changes shall not be done, and the already accumulated nonsense
needs to be reverted.
It causes no harm, and helps reduce the number of false positives in
the clang static analyzer code so I fail to see why
Author: eadler
Date: Thu Nov 29 05:16:50 2012
New Revision: 243665
URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/243665
Log:
Mark non-returning function as such
PR: bin/172978
Approved by: cperciva
MFC after:3 days
Modified:
head/sbin/dump/dump.h
Modified:
12 matches
Mail list logo