Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 16:56:38 -0700 From: Eitan Adler <eadler@freebsd.org> To: Pedro Giffuni <pfg@freebsd.org> Cc: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>, src-committers <src-committers@freebsd.org>, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r335278 - head/bin/pwd Message-ID: <CAF6rxg=Rbczc_Ns42F7eip-90V-951_%2Bt_-zy-TqwHAeZVEFXg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <da1e77a0-6d07-c731-8c23-c0310cc0b0f3@FreeBSD.org> References: <201806170514.w5H5Epts050842@repo.freebsd.org> <77224f10-7633-1122-8099-466f2a35942f@FreeBSD.org> <CAF6rxgnQgb4NNoamBxrraOTBTt-nds-zkb2tdPxWi1=wbouv=g@mail.gmail.com> <4ad7ef96-e623-5ab8-dc47-c3178115ff24@FreeBSD.org> <da1e77a0-6d07-c731-8c23-c0310cc0b0f3@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 19 June 2018 at 12:57, Pedro Giffuni <pfg@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > On 19/06/2018 11:25, John Baldwin wrote: >> >> On 6/18/18 10:26 PM, Eitan Adler wrote: >>> >>> On 18 June 2018 at 10:57, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 6/16/18 10:14 PM, Eitan Adler wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Author: eadler >>>>> Date: Sun Jun 17 05:14:50 2018 >>>>> New Revision: 335278 >>>>> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/335278 >>>>> >>>>> Log: >>>>> pwd: mark usage as dead >>>> >>>> You keep committing changes like this and ignoring e-mails about them. >>> >>> I replied both the first time and this time. I may have >>> (accidentally?) ignored similar emails though. The question I have is >>> other than the mild code churn what's the harm? >> >> It adds clutter. Also, fixing the tool means you fix all the places at >> once rather than slowly adding workarounds one by one. >> >>>> What broken compiler are you using that doesn't properly inherit __dead2 >>>> from the call to exit()? >>> >>> In this case, scan-build50 was getting annoyed. >> >> Does scan-build from LLVM 6.0 handle this correctly? If so, I'd say to >> just mark this warning as broken (and thus ignore it) for scan-build50 >> just as we ignore certain warnings from GCC 4.2.1 because they are >> broken-as-implemented. >> > FWIW, clang's scan-build is made to even more false positives and general > noise than the regular compiler warnings. > It is better to just ignore it unless it finds something real. I don't consider this a real harm, but I'll try and remember to ignore these in the future. -- Eitan Adler Source, Ports, Doc committer Bugmeister, Ports Security teams
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAF6rxg=Rbczc_Ns42F7eip-90V-951_%2Bt_-zy-TqwHAeZVEFXg>