[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Liberty-eiffel Digest, Vol 53, Issue 1
From: |
Hans Zwakenberg |
Subject: |
Re: Liberty-eiffel Digest, Vol 53, Issue 1 |
Date: |
Tue, 1 Feb 2022 20:24:56 +0100 (CET) |
I'll put LE on a Linux VM and try to create a test. As I'm getting my teeth
wet with cppcheck, there's more where this one came from – especially the
GC-code has quite a few potential error flagged...
cheers
Hans
> liberty-eiffel-request@gnu.org hat am 01.02.2022 18:01 geschrieben:
>
>
> Send Liberty-eiffel mailing list submissions to
> liberty-eiffel@gnu.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/liberty-eiffel
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> liberty-eiffel-request@gnu.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> liberty-eiffel-owner@gnu.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Liberty-eiffel digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Liberty Eiffel runtime C-code question (Raphael Mack)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2022 20:55:20 +0100
> From: Raphael Mack <ramack@raphael-mack.de>
> To: liberty-eiffel@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Liberty Eiffel runtime C-code question
> Message-ID:
> <eed8fcda78b0cf4455f679fc05179805a48b3178.camel@raphael-mack.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> mh. When I look at the callers place I would say, that the (undefined
> return value) is not used. So for me it looks like a bug, yes. Mainly
> in sys/runtime/c/deep_twin.c, where the * should be removed.
>
> What concerns me most with this fact is, that we don't seem to have a
> test and not even a tutorial calling deep_twin.
> Any volunteers to create this test?
>
> As the additional * in this case would be easy to spot even for a C
> compiler I wonder whether we should extend the C compiler warning flags
> - at least for the tests on ET. - Which I (on the other side) also fear
> a little.
>
> Someone willing to compile with -Wall or maybe -Wreturn-type for the
> start?
>
> Regards,
> Rapha
>
> Am Montag, dem 31.01.2022 um 13:23 +0100 schrieb Hans Zwakenberg:
> > function se_deep_twin_trats() in deep_twin.c is defined as a
> > function returning a void pointer:
> >
> > void* se_deep_twin_trats(void) {
> > se_deep_twin_start_counter--;
> > if (se_deep_twin_start_counter == 0) {
> > se_hash_table_clear(se_deep_twin_memory);
> > }
> >
> > where does it return that pointer? I don't quite get it. Is this
> > a bug?
> >
> > cheers
> > Hans
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Liberty-eiffel mailing list
> Liberty-eiffel@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/liberty-eiffel
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Liberty-eiffel Digest, Vol 53, Issue 1
> *********************************************
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- Re: Liberty-eiffel Digest, Vol 53, Issue 1,
Hans Zwakenberg <=