Wireshark mailing list archives
Re: About Dead Store in clang Analysis
From: Guy Harris <guy () alum mit edu>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 17:04:44 -0700
On Mar 24, 2011, at 3:59 PM, John Sullivan wrote:
(Aside: my attitude to dead stores is that eliminating them is a job for the compiler.
It is, and I think at least some (perhaps all) modern compilers will do that already. However, a dead store could either be "this is part of an idiom, and some of the stuff done in the idiom isn't always useful", or it could be "somebody made a mistake" (typed the wrong variable name, deleted some code but forgot to delete other code that the code removal rendered unnecessary, etc.), so getting dead-store warnings can be useful. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe
Current thread:
- About Dead Store in clang Analysis Alexis La Goutte (Mar 24)
- Re: About Dead Store in clang Analysis Stephen Fisher (Mar 24)
- Re: About Dead Store in clang Analysis Dirk Jagdmann (Mar 24)
- Re: About Dead Store in clang Analysis Chris Maynard (Mar 24)
- Re: About Dead Store in clang Analysis Jeff Morriss (Mar 24)
- Re: About Dead Store in clang Analysis John Sullivan (Mar 24)
- Re: About Dead Store in clang Analysis Dirk Jagdmann (Mar 24)
- Re: About Dead Store in clang Analysis Guy Harris (Mar 24)
- Re: About Dead Store in clang Analysis Guy Harris (Mar 24)