[libcxx] r216317 - Add return statement to a test class's assignment operator. Defect found by Coverity Scan.

[David Blaikie]

I seem to recall an actual functionality bug (maybe in regex?) In libc++
due to a missing return somewhere earlier this year...

Might be worth prioritizing some warnings and cleaning them up more
aggressively.
On Aug 23, 2014 12:51 AM, "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at google.com> wrote:

>
> On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 12:39 AM, Eric Fiselier <eric at efcs.ca> wrote:
>
>> > We have a Clang warning for this - I would like to know why that didn't
>> catch it? Are we not building this with -Wreturn-type?
>>
>> Currently we don't compile our tests with any warning flags. I'm not sure
>> if it was just too noisy but looking at other defects
>> Coverity found its clear we need to enable at least some of them. There
>> are a bunch of assignments that should be comparisons as well.
>>
>
> I would suggest compiling with most warnings (-Wall -Wextra -pedantic
> maybe?) and using narrow and scoped pragmas to disable the warnings that we
> intentionally trigger to test warned-on behavior that the library is
> required to support.
>
> It'll likely be a ton of work though.
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-commits mailing list
> cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20140823/52af42f2/attachment.html>