change log for rtems (2011-10-26)

[Ralf Corsepius]

On 10/26/2011 05:46 PM, Gedare Bloom wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Ralf Corsepius
> <ralf.corsepius at rtems.org>  wrote:
>> On 10/26/2011 04:53 PM, Gedare Bloom wrote:
>>>
>>>   >
>>>   >  * libmisc/monitor/mon-monitor.c (rtems_monitor_wakeup):
>>>   >  Remove unused var "status" (Avoid warning).
>>>   >
>>>   >  M
>>>   >  1.2973
>>>   >  cpukit/ChangeLog
>>>   >  M
>>>   >  1.44
>>>   >  cpukit/libmisc/monitor/mon-monitor.c
>>>   >
>>>   >  diff -u rtems/cpukit/ChangeLog:1.2972 rtems/cpukit/ChangeLog:1.2973
>>>   >  --- rtems/cpukit/ChangeLog:1.2972Wed Oct 26 05:32:09 2011
>>>   >  +++ rtems/cpukit/ChangeLogWed Oct 26 09:05:32 2011
>>>   >  @@ -1,3 +1,8 @@
>>>   >  +2011-10-26Ralf Corsépius<ralf.corsepius at rtems.org
>>> <mailto:ralf.corsepius at rtems.org>>
>>>   >  +
>>>   >  +* libmisc/monitor/mon-monitor.c (rtems_monitor_wakeup):
>>>   >  +Remove unused var "status" (Avoid warning).
>>>   >  +
>>>   >    2011-10-26Sebastian Huber<sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de
>>> <mailto:sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de>>
>>>   >
>>>   >    * ftpd/ftpd.h, ftpd/ftpd.c: Moved buffer and stack size constants into
>>>   >
>>>   >  diff -u rtems/cpukit/libmisc/monitor/mon-monitor.c:1.43
>>> rtems/cpukit/libmisc/monitor/mon-monitor.c:1.44
>>>   >  --- rtems/cpukit/libmisc/monitor/mon-monitor.c:1.43Fri Sep  2
>>> 08:17:35 2011
>>>   >  +++ rtems/cpukit/libmisc/monitor/mon-monitor.cWed Oct 26 09:05:32 2011
>>>   >  @@ -295,9 +295,7 @@
>>>   >    void
>>>   >    rtems_monitor_wakeup(void)
>>>   >    {
>>>   >  -    rtems_status_code status;
>>>   >  -
>>>   >  -    status = rtems_event_send(rtems_monitor_task_id,
>>> MONITOR_WAKEUP_EVENT);
>>>   >  +    rtems_event_send(rtems_monitor_task_id, MONITOR_WAKEUP_EVENT);
>>>   >    }
>>> Should the return value be checked or discarded?
>>
>> In general, I think the return values should be checked and used whenever
>> possible and useful.
>>
>> In this particular case, I don't know what to do, ...
>>
>> May-be somebody has a better proposal than simply ignoring the return value.
>>
> I think it would be better to bring up these cases as a PR instead of
> directly "fixing" them, since removing the unused variable in these
> cases could be reducing our chance of finding a silent bug.

Well, this change didn't modify the behavior ... it was a (run-time) 
silent bug (design-flaw) before and is a silent bug (design-flaw) 
afterwards :)

Yes, I could have filed a PR on this, but ... if I'd file PRs on each 
and every issue, I current see, I'd - sad but true - probably get nowhere.

Ralf