On 9/9/21 10:28 AM, Ján Tomko wrote:
On a Monday in 2021, Laine Stump wrote:
> On 9/4/21 4:44 PM, Ján Tomko wrote:
>
>> @@ -319,9 +308,9 @@ testFileIsSharedFSType(const void *opaque
>> G_GNUC_UNUSED)
>> return EXIT_AM_SKIP;
>> #else
>> const struct testFileIsSharedFSType *data = opaque;
>> + int ret = -1;
>> g_autofree char *mtabFile = NULL;
>> bool actual;
>> - int ret = -1;
>
> unrelated (well, only peripherally related) code movement.
>
> [...]
>
>
>> @@ -199,15 +195,15 @@ testVirPCIDeviceReattach(const void *opaque
>> G_GNUC_UNUSED)
>> for (i = 0; i < nDev; i++) {
>> if (virPCIDeviceReattach(dev[i], activeDevs, inactiveDevs) < 0)
>> - goto cleanup;
>> + return -1;
>> CHECK_LIST_COUNT(activeDevs, 0);
>> CHECK_LIST_COUNT(inactiveDevs, nDev - i - 1);
>> }
>> - ret = 0;
>> + return 0;
>> cleanup:
>> - return ret;
>> + return -1;
>> }
>
>
> Oops. You forgot one! cleanup is no longer referenced, but you didn't
> remove it (or the dead code "return -1;" following it)
>
'cleanup' is still referenced inside the 'CHECK_LIST_COUNT' macro,
which is also used by testVirPCIDeviceReset and testVirPCIDeviceDetach.
Ewww, ... er, I mean "Oh. Interesting." Well at least that explains why
it still compiled, so I don't have to lose sleep over that any more :-)
On second thought, mixing returns with cleanups does not seem like
a good idea and I will drop this partial conversion before pushing.
Jano