[asterisk-dev] [Code Review] unchecked_return audit and fixes

[jrose]

-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/1905/#review6176
-----------------------------------------------------------



/branches/1.8/main/asterisk.c
<https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/1905/#comment11319>

    Added:
    ast_set_priority(0);
    
    before these lines.


- jrose


On May 8, 2012, 3:03 p.m., jrose wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/1905/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated May 8, 2012, 3:03 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Asterisk Developers and Matt Jordan.
> 
> 
> Summary
> -------
> 
> Makes corrections for a number of unchecked return reports from Coverity and marks a handful of others as being ignorable (because the return seems genuinely inconsequential for these cases).  There are a couple oddities that might need a second look.
> 
> 
> This addresses bug ASTERISK-19658.
>     https://issues.asterisk.org/jira/browse/ASTERISK-19658
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   /branches/1.8/apps/app_queue.c 365473 
>   /branches/1.8/apps/app_voicemail.c 365473 
>   /branches/1.8/channels/chan_iax2.c 365473 
>   /branches/1.8/channels/chan_sip.c 365473 
>   /branches/1.8/channels/iax2-provision.c 365473 
>   /branches/1.8/channels/sig_analog.c 365473 
>   /branches/1.8/funcs/func_devstate.c 365473 
>   /branches/1.8/funcs/func_lock.c 365473 
>   /branches/1.8/main/acl.c 365473 
>   /branches/1.8/main/asterisk.c 365473 
>   /branches/1.8/main/db.c 365473 
>   /branches/1.8/main/features.c 365473 
>   /branches/1.8/main/pbx.c 365473 
>   /branches/1.8/main/xmldoc.c 365473 
>   /branches/1.8/res/ael/ael.flex 365473 
> 
> Diff: https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/1905/diff
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Testing done depends on the particular issue that was being poked at. In some cases, it was as simple as a snap judgement to add a warning. In a couple others, I would test what would happen as a consequence of an unanticipated return.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> jrose
> 
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-dev/attachments/20120508/dd4d2d06/attachment.htm>