Re: string.h: Mark 34 functions with __must_check

Nick Desaulniers
2019-10-09T17:34:11Z

On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 10:04 AM Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de> wrote:
>
> > Ah, granted, I was surprised, too.
>
> Thanks for this view.

I mean, it's a good thing that we don't have any issues that this
patch would catch today. Seems Steven and I were surprised
(pessimistic?).

>
>
> > Maybe would be helpful to mention that in the commit message.
>
> My Linux software build resources might be too limited to take
> more system configuration variations safely into account
> for this issue.

That's understandable. I think if the patch bakes in linux-next, it
might flush out some problematic cases in other ARCH's.

> Would you like to achieve further checks here?

I reviewed the functions here and believe the ones you added checks
for all look good. I value Rasmus' feedback, so I'd like to hear what
he thinks about my earlier comments. I have no comment if we should
go further/annotate more, other than that that can be done in a follow
up patch. Though Joe's comment on the relative order of where the
annotation appears in the function declarations should be addressed in
a V2 IMO.
--
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers