From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id C843F385DC0B; Thu, 23 Apr 2020 14:13:38 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org C843F385DC0B DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1587651218; bh=UPUjbiwbkRSFBnsiJlbBjW3YerjVOeyuEhOo/sSZdFM=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=upYPcQJGPIcpZOBXgga+hTAOSNeiOPF8IwCT20OlUJ9JzO6vg94YcEw83Lgn9bdj5 QNMa7m5Wbu5dNjAGb80Oht8rM0bi2uLbppWEzQ8BypREF+e+rMtxWzFOskrJ1avCsY Z8v5c+Uu8YXUgdGToI7MvFqsCADYWFPyeBXmssjs= From: "ams at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug other/94629] 10 issues located by the PVS-studio static analyzer Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 14:13:38 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: other X-Bugzilla-Version: 10.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: ams at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 14:13:38 -0000 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D94629 --- Comment #23 from Andrew Stubbs --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12) > (In reply to Andrew Stubbs from comment #11) > > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10) > > > or if instead we should drop the "status =3D " for the cases where no= thing > > > checks it. Andrew? > >=20 > > I think checking the status is probably good practice, even though I do= n't > > think there's an actual bug here. >=20 > I have no way to test it, so if you want and can test it (perhaps with ot= her > changes), please take it over, or we throw it away, we don't have to fix = all > the warnings, we just should skim through it to find if there aren't any > actual bugs. I think this is done now. The patch needed to be changed a little because HSA_STATUS_INFO_BREAK is also a valid return value (meaning that the iterat= or exited early).=