Re: clang's static checker report.

From: Grzegorz Jaskiewicz <gj(at)pointblue(dot)com(dot)pl>
To: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: clang's static checker report.
Date: 2009-08-29 16:47:42
Message-ID: 19454D21-D033-4F9B-8EE5-62F6729F6348@pointblue.com.pl
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On 29 Aug 2009, at 17:35, Greg Stark wrote:

> We still have things like this showing "division by zero":
>
> Assert(activeTapes > 0);
> 1913 slotsPerTape = (state->memtupsize - state->mergefirstfree) /
> activeTapes;
>
>
> It looks like if you marked ExceptionalCondition() as never returning
> then it should hide this.
well, it is marked as such , here's excerpt from differences to head:

extern int ExceptionalCondition(const char *conditionName,
const char *errorType,
- const char *fileName, int
lineNumber);
+ const char *fileName, int
lineNumber) __attribute__((analyzer_noreturn));

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Stark 2009-08-29 17:05:00 Re: clang's static checker report.
Previous Message Greg Stark 2009-08-29 16:35:35 Re: clang's static checker report.