On 11/11/2019 13:17, Jürgen Groß wrote:
> On 11.11.19 13:31, Colin Ian King wrote:
>> On 11/11/2019 12:25, Jürgen Groß wrote:
>>> On 11.11.19 13:20, Colin King wrote:
From: Colin Ian King
The non-zero check on ret is always going to be false because
ret was initialized as zero
On 11.11.19 13:31, Colin Ian King wrote:
On 11/11/2019 12:25, Jürgen Groß wrote:
On 11.11.19 13:20, Colin King wrote:
From: Colin Ian King
The non-zero check on ret is always going to be false because
ret was initialized as zero and the only place it is set to
non-zero contains a return path
On 11/11/2019 12:25, Jürgen Groß wrote:
> On 11.11.19 13:20, Colin King wrote:
>> From: Colin Ian King
>>
>> The non-zero check on ret is always going to be false because
>> ret was initialized as zero and the only place it is set to
>> non-zero contains a return path before the non-zero check.
On 11.11.19 13:20, Colin King wrote:
From: Colin Ian King
The non-zero check on ret is always going to be false because
ret was initialized as zero and the only place it is set to
non-zero contains a return path before the non-zero check. Hence
the check is redundant and can be removed.
From: Colin Ian King
The non-zero check on ret is always going to be false because
ret was initialized as zero and the only place it is set to
non-zero contains a return path before the non-zero check. Hence
the check is redundant and can be removed.
Addresses-Coverity: ("Logically dead code")
