>
> On 8/11/19 2:56 PM, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
> >>
> >> spice_assert is a macro and it may be that variable will
> >> be incremented twice (in theory, possibly not in practice).
> >>
> >
> > No, the issue is that Coverity assume that code can be stripped out
> > as usually assert can be stripped out (defining NDEBUG for normal
> > assert).
>
> You are correct that this is what the covscan complains about:
> "The containing function might work differently in a non-debug build."
>
> But spice_assert definition does not depend on NDEBUG.
> On the other hand it does not happen in reality that
> the variable is incremented twice.
>
> I'll change the above comment to say
> spice_assert is a macro so prevent side-effects by
> not changing the variable in it.
>
Why not telling the truth? That is to remove a Coverity false
positive specifying which one?
> Uri.
>
> >
> >> Simply do it one line above.
> >>
> >> Found by covscan
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Uri Lublin <uril@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> >
> > Beside the commit message no complains to make Coverity happy
> >
> >> ---
> >> server/tests/test-loop.c | 3 ++-
> >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/server/tests/test-loop.c b/server/tests/test-loop.c
> >> index 82af80ab3..4df3a7d20 100644
> >> --- a/server/tests/test-loop.c
> >> +++ b/server/tests/test-loop.c
> >> @@ -78,7 +78,8 @@ static SpiceTimer *twice_timers_remove[2] = { NULL, NULL
> >> };
> >> static int twice_remove_called = 0;
> >> static void timer_not_twice_remove(void *opaque)
> >> {
> >> - spice_assert(++twice_remove_called == 1);
> >> + ++twice_remove_called;
> >> + spice_assert(twice_remove_called == 1);
> >>
> >> /* delete timers, should not have another call */
> >> core->timer_remove(twice_timers_remove[0]);
> >
> > Frediano
> >
>
>
_______________________________________________
Spice-devel mailing list
Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel