CPP: Fix 'Missing return statement' #495
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
jbj
approved these changes
Nov 20, 2018
Contributor
jbj
left a comment
jbj
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Excellent. This fixes the problem for PowerDNS: https://lgtm.com/query/1107702639757094211/
Contributor
|
What it's doing seems reasonable to me. gcc says |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
We've noticed curious results from "Missing return statement" (AV Rule 114.ql) recently where there are multiple results on functions with
voidreturn types (that really shouldn't be reported by this query). For example:- boost 'output.c' line 31 (https://jenkins.internal.semmle.com/job/Build-Snapshot/job/boost/)
- jdku8 'p11_util.c' line 241
- powerDNS https://lgtm.com/projects/g/PowerDNS/pdns/rev/pr-df4d3165025fea0596de157837ac0c477b323f21
It turns out these functions have been extracted with multiple return types, typically
intdue to an implicitly declared use of the function before a propervoiddeclaration is encountered. This PR adds a test and a simple solution to exclude such functions.@ian-semmle what should the extractor be doing with code such as the new test case?