On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 05:36:44PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 03:26:09AM +0100, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote:
@@ -48,6 +49,19 @@ VIR_MOCK_IMPL_RET_ARGS(xc_interface_open, }
+VIR_MOCK_IMPL_RET_ARGS(libxl_get_version_info, + const libxl_version_info*, + libxl_ctx *, ctx) +{ + static libxl_version_info info; + + memset(&info, 0, sizeof(info)); + + return &info; + /* silence gcc warning */ + return real_libxl_get_version_info(ctx);
Why was gcc warning about that requires the second return statement ? I would have though this would /cause/ a warning by creating unreachable code ?
Because or static real_##name in (unused otherwise): # define VIR_MOCK_IMPL_RET_ARGS(name, rettype, ...) \ rettype name(VIR_MOCK_ARGTYPENAMES(__VA_ARGS__)); \ static rettype (*real_##name)(VIR_MOCK_ARGTYPES(__VA_ARGS__)); \ rettype name(VIR_MOCK_ARGTYPENAMES_UNUSED(__VA_ARGS__)) -- Best Regards, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki Invisible Things Lab A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?