Re: Coverity Scan for GNUstep?

[Richard Frith-Macdonald]

> On 25 Jan 2018, at 07:41, Fred Kiefer <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> Am 25.01.2018 um 00:59 schrieb Ivan Vučica <address@hidden>:
>> 
>> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 11:56 PM, Ivan Vučica <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 10:23 PM, Fred Kiefer <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> In the meantime my connection with GNUstep has been confirmed and I was 
>>>> able to look at the found issues. Many of them are false positives mostly 
>>>> caused by Coverity expecting normal program continuation after NSException 
>>>> raise.
>>> 
>>> Some of this type of issues can be fixed with __attribute__ ((noreturn)).
>>> 
>>> Manual says "The attribute noreturn is not implemented in GCC versions
>>> earlier than 2.5." which is older than what we support, so it should
>>> be fine.
>>> 
>>> Even though it's just silencing this warning, I'm nonetheless creating
>>> a patch for gdomap.
>> 
>> Please disregard the mention of creating a patch for gdomap.c.
>> 
>> I've taken a closer look only a few seconds after posting this and it
>> looks like gdomap_log exits only sometimes, so the 'breaks are
>> missing' warning is probably correct.
>> 
>> I won't be creating the patch adding noreturn.
> 
> I was hoping you would provide such a patch for the NSException methods that 
> won’t return. That was the type of false positives that showed up the most in 
> the Coverity list.

I'm looking into that.