On Sat, Feb 01, 2025 at 10:33:13AM +0000, Phillip Wood wrote: > > In normal production code, we'd expect something like: > > > > if (err) > > return -1; > > > > to avoid running the rest of the function after the first error. But the > > test harness check() function doesn't return. It just complains to > > stdout and keeps running! > > That is to allow the test to add more context with test_msg() or do things > like check all the members of a struct before returning. It is a bug in the > test if it does not return after finding a NULL pointer, the correct usage > is > > if (!check(ptr)) > return; > > As we're in the process of switching to using clar which does exit the text > function if a check fails (that means there may be leaks on failure but if > the test is failing then I don't think we should be worrying about leaks) I > don't know if it is worth fixing these or not. I guess it depends if there > are the list of targets for Seyi's Outreachy project. Ah, that's good to hear. I don't think there's any urgency here. These have been popping up since people started adding more unit-tests/ last summer. Waiting a few more months to switch to clar is probably not a big deal. I'm OK with ignoring a leak in a failing test. I do suspect that Coverity might still complain about the leaks, because it is doing static analysis to show that we _can_ leak (rather than the tests, which are seeing if we leaked at runtime). But I'm not sure how much effort we want to spend on making tests do cleanup on failure. Especially in a language like C. Anyway, I'll continue to ignore these Coverity results for now, then. ;) -Peff
