On Sun, Dec 06, 2009 at 10:39:56AM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > 2. If it is a false positive, see what it would take to silence clang > > and submit a patch. I don't think we are opposed to annotations > > that help analysis tools as long as those annotations aren't too > > intrusive or make the code less readable. > > I'm a bit skeptical here. Going down that route might mean that we'll > eventually have to add all sort of crap to accommodate everyone's > preferred static analysis tool of the day. Would be far nicer to try to > make those tools more intelligent instead, or at least make them > understand an out-of-line annotation format that does not clutter the > code itself. To be clear, I am a bit skeptical, too. I would really prefer an out-of-line annotation if one is available. But I am trying to encourage the OP to actually make a patch for one instance so we can see just what it would look like. Then we actually have a data point to discuss. -Peff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html