[SAMBA 4] [PATCH] Fix IBM checker warnings

Andrew Kroeger andrew at id10ts.net
Fri Feb 8 14:38:24 GMT 2008

Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> Am Freitag, den 08.02.2008, 07:05 -0600 schrieb Andrew Kroeger:
>> Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
>>> A lot of the changes you've made seem to change:
>>> bool ret = true;
>>> ret &= foo();
>>> to
>>> ret = ret && foo();
>>> (where foo() also returns a boolean)
>>> There is nothing wrong with the first expression, and imho it is a bug
>>> in the IBM checker that it warns about these sort of expressions.
>>> Any chance you can resubmit without those particular changes? The other
>>> changes in your patch look ok.
>> The changes of:
>> 		ret &= foo();
>> 	to
>> 		ret = ret && foo();
>> were intentional.
>> The number of issues reported by the IBM checker were becoming quite
>> high, and over half of those were related to boolean issues my proposed
>> patch attempts to correct.
> I would rather report this issue as a false positive to the IBM checker
>  authors, as we've already done in the past.

I would rather quash the issue altogether.

The C language specification does not have an "&=" for boolean arguments
 (s.b.. "&&=").  Without such an extension, I would like to see my
proposed patch stand.

I am not trying to hijack/control Samba development - I am just trying
to address the 1050+ issues reported by the IBM checker.  Addressing the
issues presented in my proposed patch will bring the number of IBM
checker issues to par with the v3-2-test branch.

I'm not pointing fingers, but it seems to me that a lot of Samba 4
development happens without watching what the buildfarm system actually
does - until it's too late.  I'm just trying to
help keep the focus on the right side of the development effort.

> The other changes in your patch are ok, and I would be glad to merge
> them if you can provide a patch that doesn't include the &= changes.
> Cheers,
> Jelmer

More information about the samba-technical mailing list