git@vger.kernel.org mailing list mirror (one of many)
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: "Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <avarab@gmail.com>
To: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>,
	Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>,
	Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanwen@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] reftable: remove unreachable "return" statements
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2022 13:47:40 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <220112.865yqpxge2.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Yd3XpLaZ3qc25PzQ@nand.local>


On Tue, Jan 11 2022, Taylor Blau wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 05:40:22PM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>> Remove unreachable return statements added in acb533440fc (reftable:
>> implement refname validation, 2021-10-07) and f14bd719349 (reftable:
>> write reftable files, 2021-10-07).
>>
>> This avoids the following warnings on SunCC 12.5 on
>> gcc211.fsffrance.org:
>>
>>     "reftable/refname.c", line 135: warning: statement not reached
>>     "reftable/refname.c", line 135: warning: statement not reached
>
> Interesting. From a cursory reading, I agree with the assessment of
> at least my compiler that these return statements are both unnecessary,
> but...
>
>> Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>  reftable/refname.c | 1 -
>>  reftable/writer.c  | 1 -
>>  2 files changed, 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/reftable/refname.c b/reftable/refname.c
>> index 95734969324..136001bc2c7 100644
>> --- a/reftable/refname.c
>> +++ b/reftable/refname.c
>> @@ -132,7 +132,6 @@ static int validate_refname(const char *name)
>>  			return REFTABLE_REFNAME_ERROR;
>>  		name = next + 1;
>>  	}
>> -	return 0;
>>  }
>
> In this case the loop inside of validate_refname() should always
> terminate the function within the loop body. But removing this return
> statement here relies on the compiler to determine that fact.
>
> I could well imagine on the other end of the spectrum there exists a
> compiler which _doesn't_ make this inference pass, and would complain
> about the opposite thing as you're reporting from SunCC (i.e., that this
> function which returns something other than void does not have a return
> statement outside of the loop).
>
> So in that sense, I disagree with the guidance of SunCC's warning. In
> other words: by quelching this warning under one compiler, are we
> introducing a new warning under a different/less advanced compiler?

I'd think that any compiler who'd warn about this sort of thing at all
would be able to spot constructs like this one, which are basically:

    while (1) {
    	...
        if (x)
        	return;
	...
    }
    return; /* unreachable */

Where the elided code contains no "break", "goto" or other mechanism for
exiting the for-loop.

I.e. GCC and Clang don't bother to note the unreachable code, but I
don't think the reverse will be true, that a compiler will say that a
"return" is missing there. Having a function be just a loop body that
returns an some point is a common pattern.

>>  int validate_ref_record_addition(struct reftable_table tab,
>> diff --git a/reftable/writer.c b/reftable/writer.c
>> index 35c8649c9b7..70a7bf142a2 100644
>> --- a/reftable/writer.c
>> +++ b/reftable/writer.c
>> @@ -39,7 +39,6 @@ writer_reftable_block_stats(struct reftable_writer *w, uint8_t typ)
>>  		return &w->stats.log_stats;
>>  	}
>>  	abort();
>> -	return NULL;
>>  }
>
> Here I'm less skeptical, since it's almost certain that any compiler
> would recognize this call to abort() as terminating the whole program.
> So it should be able to infer that anything after it is unreachable.

That's also correct, but in terms of compiler implementations I'd think
you'd get basic loop flow analysis first, and the annotation of
unreturn-able functions like abort() or a custom die() later.
> ...

  reply	other threads:[~2022-01-12 12:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-01-11 16:40 [PATCH 0/3] Fix SunCC compiler complaints new in v2.35.0-rc0 Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2022-01-11 16:40 ` [PATCH 1/3] test-tool genzeros: initialize "zeros" to avoid SunCC warning Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2022-01-11 19:06   ` Taylor Blau
2022-01-12 14:21   ` Johannes Schindelin
2022-01-12 19:10     ` Taylor Blau
2022-01-13 10:08       ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2022-01-13 15:31         ` Johannes Schindelin
2022-01-13 17:38         ` Junio C Hamano
2022-01-11 16:40 ` [PATCH 2/3] reftable: remove unreachable "return" statements Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2022-01-11 19:16   ` Taylor Blau
2022-01-12 12:47     ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason [this message]
2022-01-12 19:19       ` Taylor Blau
2022-01-13 10:29         ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2022-01-13 15:39           ` Johannes Schindelin
2022-01-13 20:17       ` Johannes Sixt
2022-01-13 21:37         ` Junio C Hamano
2022-01-11 16:40 ` [PATCH 3/3] reftable tests: avoid "int" overflow, use "uint64_t" Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2022-01-11 19:28   ` Taylor Blau
2022-01-11 19:31     ` Han-Wen Nienhuys
2022-01-11 19:41       ` Taylor Blau
2022-01-11 20:08         ` Johannes Sixt
2022-01-11 20:18           ` Taylor Blau
2022-01-11 20:21             ` Johannes Sixt
2022-01-11 20:24               ` Taylor Blau
2022-01-12 14:18                 ` Johannes Schindelin
2022-01-12 19:02               ` Junio C Hamano
2022-01-12 19:07                 ` Taylor Blau
2022-01-13 10:04                   ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2022-01-13 21:38                     ` Junio C Hamano
2022-01-11 17:06 ` [PATCH 0/3] Fix SunCC compiler complaints new in v2.35.0-rc0 Han-Wen Nienhuys
2022-01-11 18:36   ` René Scharfe
2022-01-12  1:22 ` Emily Shaffer

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

  List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=220112.865yqpxge2.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com \
    --to=avarab@gmail.com \
    --cc=Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de \
    --cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=gitster@pobox.com \
    --cc=hanwen@google.com \
    --cc=me@ttaylorr.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox

	https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).