On Thu, 2010-05-20 at 12:49 +0200, Michael Stefaniuc wrote: > > It's a header construction where you typically exploit the fact that the > > header and extended structure start at the same address. So yes, we > > could leave the code as is. > "exploit" doesn't sound like a clean approach to me. The compiler does > the right thing here but there is quite some effort involved for a human > reader to validate that. The reports of good static analyze tools should > more like a hint "there is a problem around that code" and the problem > doesn't have to be the exact same thing the tool actually reported.
Yes, that's why removing the goto is the better solution here, because it simply avoids that case.
