Coverity false positive pattern

[suyash singh]

Yes it is showing for unused values

For example at line 262 in
https://scan5.coverity.com/reports.htm#v53137/p10069/fileInstanceId=164938787&defectInstanceId=45953284&mergedDefectId=1399751

On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 9:21 PM Joel Sherrill <joel at rtems.org> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 9:47 AM suyash singh <suyashsingh234 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Coverity shows value_overwrite errors for variables which are reassigned
>> new values. What should be the procedure to prevent these?
>>
>
> When I have seen these in the past, they indicate a case where a variable
> is assigned
> and assigned later without the first value being used. Is this what you
> are seeing?
>
> What file and line?
>
> We sometimes assign a variable 0 when declaring it to avoid gcc warning
> about used
> before initialized. It wouldn't surprise me if Scan didn't always like
> that.
>
> --joel
>
>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> devel mailing list
>> devel at rtems.org
>> http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20200225/60ff6ca8/attachment.html>