| From: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Grzegorz Jaskiewicz <gj(at)pointblue(dot)com(dot)pl> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: clang's static checker report. |
| Date: | 2009-08-30 17:07:51 |
| Message-ID: | 407d949e0908301007h1f5d017h96fadcb46ba0cdbb@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 5:58 PM, Grzegorz Jaskiewicz<gj(at)pointblue(dot)com(dot)pl> wrote:
> with Greg's suggested palloc and friends patch:
> http://zlew.org/postgresql_static_check/scan-build-2009-08-30-3
Argh. That didn't help at all. hm, I suppose instead of (exit(1),NULL)
we could just put ((void*)1) there?
But I think Tom's right. Worse, I think until it can do
inter-procedural analysis these messages will always be nearly all
false positives. Many if not most of our functions take pointers or
data structures which contain pointers as arguments or return values.
Most of the time those arguments and return values cannot contain NULL
pointers and the code doesn't bother to check that every single time.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Grzegorz Jaskiewicz | 2009-08-30 17:09:39 | Re: clang's static checker report. |
| Previous Message | Grzegorz Jaskiewicz | 2009-08-30 16:58:50 | Re: clang's static checker report. |