14 Jul
2017
14 Jul
'17
7:32 p.m.
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 3:09 PM, Dan Carpenter dan.carpenter@oracle.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 03:55:26PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
I don't agree with it as a static analysis dev...
What I mean is if it's a macro that returns -ENODEV or a function that returns -ENODEV, they should both be treated the same. The other warnings this check prints are quite clever.
I think this is what gcc tries to do, and it should work normally, but it fails when using ccache. I know I had cases like that, not entirely sure if this is one of them. Maybe it just means I should give up on using ccache in preprocessor mode.
Arnd