Bug#325009: state of #325009

2008-12-31 Thread Ian Jackson
Eugene V. Lyubimkin writes (Bug#325009: state of #325009):
 While first part of your report is correct (thanks for it), the
 other part all other code in apt should be thoroughly inspected is
 just not feasible, just as make apt bug-clean forever.

I suggested an approach that could be used to do it
semi-automatically:

  for example, by trying to get a compiler to report all
  places where a `boolean' return value is ignored.

Nowadays GCC has features that can generate warnings when a return
value is ignored when it should not be.  A way to do the review I
suggest would be to annotate the declarations all functions in apt
than can fail in that way, and then work through the resulting error
messages.

There will be many such messages - but most of them will be bugs.

Surely it is better to have one bug report in the BTS with the whole
class of them, rather than trying to deal with them piecemeal.

Ian.



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org



Bug#325009: state of #325009

2008-12-31 Thread Eugene V. Lyubimkin
Ian Jackson wrote:
 I suggested an approach that could be used to do it
 semi-automatically:
 
   for example, by trying to get a compiler to report all
   places where a `boolean' return value is ignored.
 
 Nowadays GCC has features that can generate warnings when a return
 value is ignored when it should not be.  A way to do the review I
 suggest would be to annotate the declarations all functions in apt
 than can fail in that way, and then work through the resulting error
 messages.
Hm, interesting idea.

-- 
Eugene V. Lyubimkin aka JackYF, JID: jackyf.devel(maildog)gmail.com
Ukrainian C++ Developer, Debian Maintainer, APT contributor



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature