[ I haven't reviewed the original patch ]
On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 03:26:18PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> On 09/10/2019 14.14, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > From: Markus Elfring <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2019 13:53:59 +0200
> >
> > Several functions return values with which useful data processing
> > should be performed. These values must not be ignored then.
> > Thus use the annotation “__must_check” in the shown function declarations.
>
> This _might_ make sense for those that are basically kmalloc() wrappers
> in one way or another [1]. But what's the point of annotating pure
> functions such as strchr, strstr, memchr etc? Nobody is calling those
> for their side effects (they don't have any...), so obviously the return
> value is used. If somebody does a strcmp() without using the result, so
> what? OK, it's odd code that might be worth flagging, but I don't think
> that's the kind of thing one accidentally adds.
if (ret) {
-EINVAL;
}
People do occasionally make mistakes like this. It can't hurt to
warn them as early as possible about nonsense code.
> You're also not consistent - strlen() is not annotated. And, for the
> standard C functions, -Wall already seems to warn about an unused
> call:
>
> #include <string.h>
> int f(const char *s)
> {
> strlen(s);
> return 3;
> }
> $ gcc -Wall -o a.o -c a.c
> a.c: In function ‘f’:
> a.c:5:2: warning: statement with no effect [-Wunused-value]
> strlen(s);
> ^~~~~~~~~
That's because glibc strlen is annotated with __attribute_pure__ which
means it has no side effects.
regards,
dan carpenter
