[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: Possible unsafe use of strncat in sbin/sysctl/sysctl.c
On 2011-08-24 00:22, Marc Balmer wrote:
Am 24.08.11 00:08, schrieb Joerg Sonnenberger:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 09:58:53PM +0000, David Holland wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:52:11PM +0200, Marc Balmer wrote:
> (void)wait! That was a pure personal remark. I really don't know where
> that (void)bla idiom comes from, and I obviously don't (void)like it.
It's an artifact of our stupid lint(1).
Not really, it is used by other analyzers to mean "yes, I know this
returns something, but I don't care". The major exception of course is
that GCC broke it for the attributed usage -- half of the pain of
dealing with modern glibc in this regard.
But that is kind of, well, unneeded. A compiler can detect that I don't
use the return value by seeing that I don't use the return value.
Why tell the compiler that I don't want to use the return value? It's a
stupid rule, to say the least.
How do you distinguish between:
"I ignore the return value of this function. I know this, I'm prefectly
happy with that, and it is intentional."
"I forgot to check the return value."
Both cases mean I don't use the return value. But in one case, this is
ok, while in the other, it's a bug. Do your compiler know something I don't?
Next thing will be adding a (really) and (maybe) statement to functions
which we really or maybe want to execute, and maybe (never) for
functions that we never call:
main(int argc, char *argc)
/* NOTREACHED */
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt%softjar.se@localhost || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
Main Index |
Thread Index |