On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 12:24:04PM +0000, Dave Gordon wrote: > On 12/02/16 16:31, Martin Peres wrote: > >This is not a big issue to return -1 since the only codepath that uses > >it is for display purposes. > > > >Caught by Klockwork. > > > >Signed-off-by: Martin Peres <martin.peres@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >--- > > src/intel_device.c | 5 ++++- > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > >diff --git a/src/intel_device.c b/src/intel_device.c > >index 54c1443..35e652a 100644 > >--- a/src/intel_device.c > >+++ b/src/intel_device.c > >@@ -650,7 +650,10 @@ int __intel_peek_fd(ScrnInfoPtr scrn) > > dev = intel_device(scrn); > > assert(dev && dev->fd != -1); > > Doesn't Klocwork recognise the assert() above? > I thought that would tell it that dev can't be NULL. My guess is that klockwork recognises that assert() can be a no-op if NDEBUG is defined and in such case won't generate code. In such a case neither of those two checks are performed. Kind regards, David _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
