On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 09:48:48AM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 09:19:15PM +0100, Martin Kletzander wrote:On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 02:44:01PM -0500, Laine Stump wrote: > On 02/22/2017 12:52 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > One of the conditions in qemuDomainDeviceCalculatePCIConnectFlags > > was missing a break that could result it in falling through to > > an incorrect codepath. > > Actually that's not true. Every codepath of the preceding case ends with > a "return blah". This is true for the entire function - every case of > every switch in the function ends with "return blah". The entire purpose > of the function is to determine the flags value, and there are no > resources that need cleaning up before returning, so as soon as the > value is determined, it immediately returns. > > I suppose it could be rewritten to change all of those into "ret = blah; > break;", then "return ret;" at the end, but it seemed safer to return > immediately than to trust that no new code would be added later in the > function (and also it's more compact) > > I wonder if this is just a more extreme case of the logic in whatever > check necessitated that I add an extra "return 0" at the very end of the > function. (that happens even in gcc 6.x; at an earlier point when the > function was simpler, that wasn't needed, but after some additions it > started producing the "control reaches end of function that requires a > return value" or whatever that warning is, and the only way to eliminate > it was with the extra return 0.) > > If adding the break shuts up the warning, then I guess ACK, but it would > probably be better if 1) gcc fixed their incorrect warning, or 2) we > switched the entire function to use the less-compact "ret = blah; > break;" style instead of returning directly, so there wasn't a single > stray break sitting in the middle. > I would say NACK since 1) is the correct option (at least for now), there is no reason for adding more lines of code that don't make sense just because of a compiler version that was not released yet, or does not even have a release plan yet.GCC 7 *is* released - and has even had a bug fix release too, so ignoring this is not an option. In any case, as Eric mentions this is a genuine bug in our code since we can fall out of the inner switch if the input variable contains a value that doesn't map to an named enum value.
Where did you get the package/tarball? I don't see anything in the release page . On the other hand, when I checked it yesterday, I looked and the development timeline  and I thought it's 2016 apparently because when I see the dates now it makes sense that the release should be around the corner. Anyway, even if they did not update the release page, on snapshot ftp  there is not even a release candidate. I remember others not being happy when we were doing workarounds for packages that downstream distros just decided to package out of VCS or snapshots. I don't feel it's right either and I thought you're on that side as well. Anyway, if it really was released, I am OK with this going in. Martin  https://gcc.gnu.org/releases.html  https://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html#timeline  ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/
Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
Description: Digital signature