Re: Liberty-eiffel Digest, Vol 53, Issue 1

[Hans Zwakenberg]

I'll put LE on a Linux VM and try to create a test.  As I'm getting my teeth 
wet with cppcheck, there's more where this one came from – especially the 
GC-code has quite a few potential error flagged...

cheers
Hans

> liberty-eiffel-request@gnu.org hat am 01.02.2022 18:01 geschrieben:
> 
>  
> Send Liberty-eiffel mailing list submissions to
>       liberty-eiffel@gnu.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>       https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/liberty-eiffel
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>       liberty-eiffel-request@gnu.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>       liberty-eiffel-owner@gnu.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Liberty-eiffel digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>    1. Re: Liberty Eiffel runtime C-code question (Raphael Mack)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2022 20:55:20 +0100
> From: Raphael Mack <ramack@raphael-mack.de>
> To: liberty-eiffel@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Liberty Eiffel runtime C-code question
> Message-ID:
>       <eed8fcda78b0cf4455f679fc05179805a48b3178.camel@raphael-mack.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> 
> 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 
> >  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Subject: Digest Footer
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Liberty-eiffel mailing list
> Liberty-eiffel@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/liberty-eiffel
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> End of Liberty-eiffel Digest, Vol 53, Issue 1
> *********************************************