[SAMBA 4] [PATCH] Fix IBM checker warnings
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();
>>> 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();
>> 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.
More information about the samba-technical