On 06/05/2018 15:53, Ian Lepore wrote: > On Tue, 2018-06-05 at 20:34 +0000, Eric van Gyzen wrote: >> Author: vangyzen >> Date: Tue Jun 5 20:34:11 2018 >> New Revision: 334669 >> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/334669 >> >> Log: >> Make Coverity more happy with r334545 >> >> Coverity complains about: >> >> if (((flags) & M_WAITOK) || _malloc_item != NULL) >> >> saying: >> >> The expression >> 1 /* (2 | 0x100) & 2 */ || _malloc_item != NULL >> is suspicious because it performs a Boolean operation >> on a constant other than 0 or 1. >> >> Although the code is correct, add "!= 0" to make it slightly >> more legible and to silence hundreds(?) of Coverity warnings. >> > > This is a sad sad thing. Treating (bits & flagconstants) as boolean has > a long long history in C. Surely there are literally thousand of > occurrances in freebsd code already, so why did this one get flagged?
I agree, and I tend to avoid adding "!= 0" unnecessarily, but I don't feel very strongly about it. This macro is expanded in many locations, so the number of Coverity warnings increased by hundreds in the most recent run. I care about that more than avoiding "!= 0". I don't sprinkle crap all over the code just to appease Coverity, but this one seemed perfectly reasonable. It makes the code slightly more clear and legible for some readers, and I imagine it doesn't hurt the others. Yes, there are probably many old occurrences of this, and there might be many old corresponding warnings, but I tend to focus on the recently added ones, just because they're more likely relevant. /me opens the static analysis can of worms...again Eric _______________________________________________ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
