Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 18:54:17 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: Eitan Adler <eadler@freebsd.org> Cc: Pedro Giffuni <pfg@freebsd.org>, 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: <CANCZdfq_vFR0afqg8PRrnmTbuVV0_aTyGAJw2ghPR31fO2V4jg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAF6rxg=Rbczc_Ns42F7eip-90V-951_%2Bt_-zy-TqwHAeZVEFXg@mail.gmail.com> 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> <CAF6rxg=Rbczc_Ns42F7eip-90V-951_%2Bt_-zy-TqwHAeZVEFXg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 5:56 PM, Eitan Adler <eadler@freebsd.org> wrote: > 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. We're in danger of being nibbled to death by ducks by these sorts of things. We need to choose carefully where we annotate to accommodate the competing needs of simplicity and automated tools providing assistance in boosting our code quality. So this one may or may not matter. But it's not just this one change that we have to look at... Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CANCZdfq_vFR0afqg8PRrnmTbuVV0_aTyGAJw2ghPR31fO2V4jg>