[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] RFC xen: suppress Coverity warnings about atomic_read and atomic_set.
On 12/09/13 15:14, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Thu, 2013-09-12 at 15:06 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 12.09.13 at 15:47, Tim Deegan <tim@xxxxxxx> wrote: >>> RFC because I'm not sure what people think about scattering coverity >>> annotations in the code. >> I personally dislike such tool specific annotations. What if someone >> suggests a second tool to pass our code through? If there was >> some standardization, that'd be a different thing... > Could we handle this how we do different compilers: > > #ifdef COVERITY > #define __false_cast_thing THE ANNOTATION > #else... > > static inline void atomic_set(atomic_t *v, int i) > { > __false_cast_thing > write_atomic(&v->counter, i); > > Although if the tools are not consistent about placement etc this won't > help at all. The annotations are just comments, and as there is an implication of being able to annotate next to macro declarations, I doubt this would have the intended effect. I was wondering whether we can use the "model" file to specify this annotation next to a modelled version of atomic_set() ? That way, all Coverity gubbins would be in a single file unreferenced by anything else. ~Andrew _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |