[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Liberty Eiffel runtime C-code question
From: |
Raphael Mack |
Subject: |
Re: Liberty Eiffel runtime C-code question |
Date: |
Mon, 31 Jan 2022 20:55:20 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Evolution 3.38.3-1 |
mh. When I look at the callers place I would say, that the (undefined
return value) is not used. So for me it looks like a bug, yes. Mainly
in sys/runtime/c/deep_twin.c, where the * should be removed.
What concerns me most with this fact is, that we don't seem to have a
test and not even a tutorial calling deep_twin.
Any volunteers to create this test?
As the additional * in this case would be easy to spot even for a C
compiler I wonder whether we should extend the C compiler warning flags
- at least for the tests on ET. - Which I (on the other side) also fear
a little.
Someone willing to compile with -Wall or maybe -Wreturn-type for the
start?
Regards,
Rapha
Am Montag, dem 31.01.2022 um 13:23 +0100 schrieb Hans Zwakenberg:
> function se_deep_twin_trats() in deep_twin.c is defined as a
> function returning a void pointer:
>
> void* se_deep_twin_trats(void) {
> se_deep_twin_start_counter--;
> if (se_deep_twin_start_counter == 0) {
> se_hash_table_clear(se_deep_twin_memory);
> }
>
> where does it return that pointer? I don't quite get it. Is this
> a bug?
>
> cheers
> Hans
>