Coverity Unchecked Return Value Issues

[Joel Sherrill]

On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 1:53 PM Gedare Bloom <gedare at rtems.org> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 11:59 AM Joel Sherrill <joel at rtems.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>
> I prefer to use the assert part. The wording is a little awkward. I guess
> it doesn't hurt to put the (void) (_status); and still use the status
> later? so we don't have to specifically indicate ignored/unused in the
> macro name?
>
> Then:
> _Assert_Return_value_equals(_return_value, _expected_value)
> _Assert_Return_not_equals(_return_value, _not_expected_value)
>
> or so would be my preference.
>

OK.

>
> We should also have
> RTEMS_IGNORE_RETURN_VALUE(_return_value)
> maybe.
>


Is this what you want?

  _Assert_Return_value_equals (x, OK);
  RTEMS_IGNORE_RETURN_VALUE(x);

Add the _Assert_xxx to rtems/score/assert.h and RTEMS_IGNORE_xxx where?

Because the only time x is used is when assert is enabled.

But ignored parameter vs ignored return variable is not worth a macro IMO

--joel


>
>
>> It will end up being three arguments otherwise. It would be nice to keep
>> it reliably to one line.
>>
> Embedding the condition in the name will be easier to spot check anyway.
> (Like catch == vs = problem)
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>    (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/dd31dc52/attachment.html>