From: Douglas K. <do...@go...> - 2016-05-14 19:51:18
|
> This sounds good but do you know why this shows up on the list of Likely > suspicious calls? > Yes, because I'm the only one who knows how I defined the term "suspicious" in that check! And in fact I didn't introduce this "likely suspicious" call now, it's from b29f6c2670c6e9f71c466004a55073f03df94037. What the test is trying to do is discriminate between a few scenarios: 1. you compiled a full call to FOO and then defined a compiler macro. In that case, even though the compiler macro could legally have declined to produce a new form, it's worth a warning if was not defined because it's probably not your intent to have not seen the macro definition. 2. inline functions - since there's no such thing as an inline function that declines to provide an expansion, it almost *always* suspicious to compile a full call; except if there was a (locally (notinline)). But if there is a known inline expansion, but it's proclaimed notinline, I think you can get a false warning. Maybe? Anyway the second check is basically flawed and I plan to remove it now that I've enforced that you *can't* have any inlining failures in self-build. |