On November 19, 2014 8:37:47 PM CST, Gedare Bloom <ged...@rtems.org> wrote: >I'm more concerned with the hard-coded cache alignment value, than I >am with the dead code.
The code is likely not doing what the surge intended but Chris needs to comment on that bases on git blame. :) Definitely questionable having a hard coded value and then testing it. >-Gedare > >On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 6:10 PM, Joel Sherrill ><joel.sherr...@oarcorp.com> wrote: >> Hi >> >> Coverity ID: 1255327 >> >> I think this looks like a legitimately flagged piece of code : >> >> 1537 * For unspecified cache alignments we use the CPU alignment. >> 1538 */ >> >> assignment: Assigning: cache_aligment = 32U. >> 1539 cache_aligment = 32; /* FIXME rtems_cache_get_data_line_size() >*/ >> >> const: At condition cache_aligment <= 0U, the value of cache_aligment >must >> be equal to 32. >> >> dead_error_condition: The condition cache_aligment <= 0U cannot be >true. >> 1540 if (cache_aligment <= 0) >> >> CID 1255327 (#1 of 1): Logically dead code (DEADCODE)dead_error_line: >> Execution cannot reach this statement: cache_aligment = 8U;. >> 1541 cache_aligment = CPU_ALIGNMENT; >> >> Josh .. can you check if CodeSonar flagged this? >> >> -- >> Joel Sherrill, Ph.D. Director of Research & Development >> joel.sherr...@oarcorp.com On-Line Applications Research >> Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS Huntsville AL 35805 >> Support Available (256) 722-9985 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> devel mailing list >> devel@rtems.org >> http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
