On Tue, Feb 25, 2020, 6:10 PM Chris Johns <chr...@rtems.org> wrote: > On 26/2/20 8:00 am, Gedare Bloom wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 9:38 AM suyash singh <suyashsingh...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> Yes it is showing for unused values > >> > >> For example at line 262 in > https://scan5.coverity.com/reports.htm#v53137/p10069/fileInstanceId=164938787&defectInstanceId=45953284&mergedDefectId=1399751 > >> > > That appears to be legitimate. Analysis now has to be made whether the > > value written should have been consumed somewhere, or if it is OK to > > remove the assignment. > > This is imported code. Should upstream be checked first to see if there is > a > newer version? >
Yes. That's always the first answer. Also check we define conditionals correctly as the upstream's build system would. I don't see how the ifdefs could cause this issue at first glance, but... And if the code is the same upstream, then we report it to them. > Chris > _______________________________________________ > 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
