Coverity false positive pattern

[Joel Sherrill]

On Tue, Feb 25, 2020, 6:10 PM Chris Johns <chrisj at rtems.org> wrote:

> On 26/2/20 8:00 am, Gedare Bloom wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 9:38 AM suyash singh <suyashsingh234 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> 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
> >>
> > That appears to be legitimate. Analysis now has to be made whether the
> > value written should have been consumed somewhere, or if it is OK to
> > remove the assignment.
>
> This is imported code. Should upstream be checked first to see if there is
> a
> newer version?
>

Yes. That's always the first answer.

Also check we define conditionals correctly as the upstream's build system
would. I don't see how the ifdefs could cause this issue at first glance,
but...

And if the code is the same upstream, then we report it to them.


> Chris
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200225/055d9e68/attachment-0001.html>