On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 9:38 AM suyash singh <suyashsingh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Yes it is showing for unused values > > For example at line 262 in > https://scan5.coverity.com/reports.htm#v53137/p10069/fileInstanceId=164938787&defectInstanceId=45953284&mergedDefectId=1399751 > That appears to be legitimate. Analysis now has to be made whether the value written should have been consumed somewhere, or if it is OK to remove the assignment.
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 9:21 PM Joel Sherrill <j...@rtems.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 9:47 AM suyash singh <suyashsingh...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> Coverity shows value_overwrite errors for variables which are reassigned >>> new values. What should be the procedure to prevent these? >> >> >> When I have seen these in the past, they indicate a case where a variable is >> assigned >> and assigned later without the first value being used. Is this what you are >> seeing? >> >> What file and line? >> >> We sometimes assign a variable 0 when declaring it to avoid gcc warning >> about used >> before initialized. It wouldn't surprise me if Scan didn't always like that. >> >> --joel >> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> devel mailing list >>> devel@rtems.org >>> http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > devel@rtems.org > http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel