Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: sparse (static analyzer) report

From: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>
Cc: Mark Wong <markw(at)osdl(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: sparse (static analyzer) report
Date: 2005-01-15 02:30:37
Message-ID: 41E8804D.2060504@samurai.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
BTW, perhaps one reason for the relatively small number of legitimate 
issues picked up by sparse is that I ran sparse on the tree a month or 
two ago and fixed some of the stylistic issues it reported. Most of the 
stuff I didn't bother to fix looked like either a sparse bug, or a 
marginal style improvement I didn't bother applying (like fixing 0 => 
NULL in dllist.c).

I've been meaning to investigate whether sparse can be used as something 
more than just a fussy syntax checker (i.e. whether it can do any 
meaningful static analysis for interesting properties), but I haven't 
had a chance yet.

Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> It's complaining in several places about function as variables in
> function declarations (the multiple walkers and mutators for example);
> not sure how correct that is.

I believe the conclusion of prior discussions about making the 
walker/mutator prototypes more precise is that it's not worth the cost.

-Neil

P.S. Hope everyone had a good holiday. I'm back at work on Monday.

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Mark WongDate: 2005-01-15 03:09:42
Subject: Re: sparse (static analyzer) report
Previous:From: Jim C. NasbyDate: 2005-01-15 02:24:12
Subject: Re: IBM releases 500 patents

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group