On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 3:09 PM, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 03:55:26PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>> I don't agree with it as a static analysis dev...
>
> What I mean is if it's a macro that returns -ENODEV or a function that
> returns -ENODEV, they should both be treated the same. The other
> warnings this check prints are quite clever.
I think this is what gcc tries to do, and it should work normally, but it
fails when using ccache. I know I had cases like that, not entirely sure
if this is one of them. Maybe it just means I should give up on using
ccache in preprocessor mode.
Arnd
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
