Coverity Unchecked Return Value Issues

[Joel Sherrill]

On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 12:39 PM Gedare Bloom <gedare at rtems.org> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 11:24 AM Joel Sherrill <joel at rtems.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> There are more than a couple of these. in our set of CIDs. I am wondering
>> if these can be addressed with a macro like this:
>>
>> #define _IGNORED_RETURN_STATUS(_status, _ok) \
>>   do { \
>>     _Assert((_status) == (_ok)); \
>>
>
> Can you also pass the comparison? I guess it would usually be ==, but it
> could be != sometimes? I think that is the main challenge here.
>

How about 2 macro names? One for positive and one for negative

_IGNORE_RETURN_STATUS_EQ
_IGNORE_RETURN_STATUS_NEQ

Or even _Assert_Return_status_eq and _neq. I'd like these to be candidates
for our internal assert.h

It will end up being three arguments otherwise. It would be nice to keep it
reliably to one line.


>
>
>>    (void) (_status);
>>   } while (0);
>>
>> Or _Assert_Ignored_return?
>>
>> The ones I have looked at, the return value should always be successful
>> but there isn't any reason we can't be defensive about them.
>>
>> Thoughts.
>>
>> --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/20210208/87e14b66/attachment.html>