[0/3] Fix SunCC compiler complaints new in v2.35.0-rc0

Message

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason Jan. 11, 2022, 4:40 p.m. UTC

This trivial set of patches fixes compiler complaints from SunCC on
Solaris that are new in v2.35.0-rc0.

The first two are only a minor annoyance, and not the first or only
warnings of those categories that we emit, but if we can avoid adding
new ones...

The third one is a generic integer overflow bug, and will probably
result in logic errors or failures in the reftable tests on some other
platform.

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason (3):
  test-tool genzeros: initialize "zeros" to avoid SunCC warning
  reftable: remove unreachable "return" statements
  reftable tests: avoid "int" overflow, use "uint64_t"

 reftable/merged_test.c   | 4 ++--
 reftable/refname.c       | 1 -
 reftable/writer.c        | 1 -
 t/helper/test-genzeros.c | 3 +--
 4 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

Comments

Han-Wen Nienhuys Jan. 11, 2022, 5:06 p.m. UTC | #1

On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 5:40 PM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
<[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> This trivial set of patches fixes compiler complaints from SunCC on
> Solaris that are new in v2.35.0-rc0.

Thanks, looks fine in principle.

For the switch, maybe the block types should be an enum. Is there
tooling that would detect a missing case in that case, so we could
drop the abort() ?

For the 0xffffffff constant, there is probably a better symbolic
constant somewhere. Or could we say (1<<64) -1 without causing
overflow?

René Scharfe Jan. 11, 2022, 6:36 p.m. UTC | #2

Am 11.01.22 um 18:06 schrieb Han-Wen Nienhuys:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 5:40 PM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> This trivial set of patches fixes compiler complaints from SunCC on
>> Solaris that are new in v2.35.0-rc0.
>
> Thanks, looks fine in principle.
>
> For the switch, maybe the block types should be an enum. Is there
> tooling that would detect a missing case in that case, so we could
> drop the abort() ?
>
> For the 0xffffffff constant, there is probably a better symbolic
> constant somewhere. Or could we say (1<<64) -1 without causing
> overflow?

How about -1?

Or you could initialize min and max to the actual value of the first
item instead of to the absolute limits of the data type.

René

Emily Shaffer Jan. 12, 2022, 1:22 a.m. UTC | #3

On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 5:21 PM Emily Shaffer <[e-mail]> wrote:

ugh, sorry for the thumbfinger. Please ignore.