On 30 Aug 2009, at 18:07, Greg Stark wrote:
> 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:
> 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.
sure, I can try.
Btw, I got response to my bug from llvm devs, and they fully agree on
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Jeff Janes||Date: 2009-08-30 17:09:42|
|Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers] Daily digest v1.9430 (16 messages)|
|Previous:||From: Greg Stark||Date: 2009-08-30 17:07:51|
|Subject: Re: clang's static checker report.|