From owner-svn-src-all@freebsd.org Fri May 13 15:33:49 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65331B39D57; Fri, 13 May 2016 15:33:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from brde@optusnet.com.au) Received: from mail108.syd.optusnet.com.au (mail108.syd.optusnet.com.au [211.29.132.59]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FD571A4E; Fri, 13 May 2016 15:33:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from brde@optusnet.com.au) Received: from c122-106-149-109.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au (c122-106-149-109.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [122.106.149.109]) by mail108.syd.optusnet.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 880B01A57EA; Sat, 14 May 2016 01:33:41 +1000 (AEST) Date: Sat, 14 May 2016 01:33:38 +1000 (EST) From: Bruce Evans X-X-Sender: bde@besplex.bde.org To: Don Lewis cc: src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r299588 - head/usr.sbin/binmiscctl In-Reply-To: <201605130539.u4D5dTjS009804@repo.freebsd.org> Message-ID: <20160514013315.K1048@besplex.bde.org> References: <201605130539.u4D5dTjS009804@repo.freebsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Optus-CM-Score: 0 X-Optus-CM-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=EfU1O6SC c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=R/f3m204ZbWUO/0rwPSMPw==:117 a=L9H7d07YOLsA:10 a=9cW_t1CCXrUA:10 a=s5jvgZ67dGcA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=Td1rOGraJLkE9qYzSDQA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 15:33:49 -0000 On Fri, 13 May 2016, Don Lewis wrote: > Log: > Revert r299584: > Mark usage() as __dead2 so that Coverity doesn't think that execution > continues after the call and uses a negative array subscript. > > Requested by: bde Thanks. What was the problem that confused Coverity? This reminds me that even compilers can see that usage() doesn't return, by looking ahead and even inlining usage(). This breaks debugging and profiling. clang doesn't support the -funit-at-a-time and -fno-inline-functions-called-once needed to reduce its excessive inlining. Bruce