On 27.09.2023 10:14, Bertrand Marquis wrote: >> On 27 Sep 2023, at 09:53, Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetr...@bugseng.com> wrote: >> My opinion is that it's far easier for this to be an eclair configuration >> (which has the >> advantage not to depend on the exact definition of unreachable) and then >> perhaps a comment >> above it explaining the situation. > > I agree here and it is easier to make an overall exception where we list the > cases > where this is acceptable (ie all flavors of unreacheable) and document that > eclair > was configured using "xxxx" to handle this.
What about cppcheck then, for example? Jan
