[SSSD] [PATCHES] check return value

Lukas Slebodnik lslebodn at redhat.com
Thu Apr 10 13:05:29 UTC 2014


On (10/04/14 14:10), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 01:44:08PM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>> On (10/04/14 12:11), Pavel Reichl wrote:
>> >On Thu, 2014-04-10 at 11:11 +0200, Sumit Bose wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 10:34:10AM +0200, Pavel Reichl wrote:
>> >> > On Wed, 2014-04-09 at 21:19 +0200, Sumit Bose wrote:
>> >> > > On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 07:27:28PM +0200, Pavel Reichl wrote:
>> >> > > > On Mon, 2014-04-07 at 18:13 +0200, Sumit Bose wrote:
>> >> > > > > On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 02:22:04PM +0200, Pavel Reichl wrote:
>> >> > > > > > Hello,
>> >> > > > > > 
>> >> > > > > > I noticed these two warnings in clang.
>> >> > > > > > 
>> >> > > > > > It would be great if the 2nd patch could be checked by Sumit to make
>> >> > > > > > sure that the return value wasn't ignored on purpose.
>> >> > > > > 
>> >> > > > > yes, I would prefer to ignore errors here. There might be various cases
>> >> > > > > were we are not able to resolve a single SID but still can proceed with
>> >> > > > > the others.
>> >> > > > 
>> >> > > > Please see attached patch. Feel free to NACK it, if you think it's more
>> >> > > > pain than gain.
>> >> > > 
>> >> > > Why not do something useful to avoid the compiler warning and print a
>> >> > > SSSDBG_TRACE_ALL debug message with the returned error code in the case
>> >> > > of an error?
>> >> > 
>> >> > Hello Sumit, 
>> >> > 
>> >> > I just took your previous response too literally - "I would prefer to
>> >> > ignore errors here" - my bad.  (Hopefully final) patch attached.
>> >> 
>> >> Thank you. ACK
>> >> 
>> >> I wonder if the explicit (unsigned int) casts are needed to avoid
>> >> warnings or if you are just calling them to be on the safe side?
>> >
>> >Honestly, I just copy&past them. When I removed them I didn't notice any
>> If you copy&past this code then explicit casting is in two places.
>> In future, it can in 3, 4, 5 ...
>> 
>> >relevant clang or gcc warnings. I asked Jakub and he advised me that I
>> >could have used formatting macros PRIu16 and PRIu32.
>> >
>> >I would suggest to leave patch as is for now.
>> >
>> Is it a problem to send another patch?
>> 
>> LS
>
>If you have time to convert the debug messages, then by all means, send
>a patch. Maybe this could be a nice intern task? :-)

I think it should be the same case as with "converting old debug levels to new one"
If you see casting you will fix it. (maybe in separate patch)

LS



More information about the sssd-devel mailing list