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.
P.S. Hope everyone had a good holiday. I'm back at work on Monday.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Mark Wong||Date: 2005-01-15 03:09:42|
|Subject: Re: sparse (static analyzer) report|
|Previous:||From: Jim C. Nasby||Date: 2005-01-15 02:24:12|
|Subject: Re: IBM releases 500 patents|