On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 09:04:53AM +0100, Stefano Brivio wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 09:53:28 +1100
> David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 07:22:10PM +0100, Stefano Brivio wrote:
> > > The newly introduced die() calls exit(), but cppcheck doesn't see it
> > > and warns about possibly invalid arguments used after the check which
> > > triggers die(). Add return statements to silence the warnings.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>  
> > 
> > Oof, that's super ugly.  Any chance that cppcheck will recognize the
> > ((noreturn)) attribute if we added it to die()?
> 
> It doesn't. I guess Library::isnoreturn() in lib/library.cpp is fooled
> by the way we build die with a macro. I couldn't find a corresponding
> ticket, there's a vaguely related false _negative_ here:
> 	https://trac.cppcheck.net/ticket/7933
> 
> but I admit I might have missed one from this list:
> 	https://trac.cppcheck.net/query?status=!closed&keywords=~valueflow
> 
> I see a few alternatives:
> 
> - move exit() after the function body, instead of using 'doexit', I
>   couldn't find a "nice" way to do so but it should be possible

I prefer this option - I don't love flags which dramatically change
behaviour any way.

> - fix the issue in cppcheck
> 
> - or... would you prefer if I use a cppcheck-suppress token here?
> 

-- 
David Gibson			| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
				| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson