On 15/02/16 15:47, Dave Gordon wrote:
On 15/02/16 13:40, Martin Peres wrote:
On 15/02/16 14:24, 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.
It does not, I had to close many false positives related to this...
Hmmm .. elsewhere (e.g. [4/7]) you have /added/ an assert, which I
thought must be so that Klocwork stops complaining that something might
be NULL ... maybe it can't handle the composite assertion? Does it
silence the complaint if you change:
assert(dev && dev->fd != -1);
into:
assert(dev);
assert(dev->fd != -1);
?
Sure, I added an assert, but not to silence patchwork, just to make sure
we have no problem. I cannot run klokwork myself and my goal was not to
silence but instead to check the reported issues.
David is right, I think Klokwork only cares about runtime checks and
wants to make sure that we never de-reference a NULL pointer.
Martin
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
