Re: Clang 3.3 Analyzer Results

Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> I'm currently capturing a text version of all the warnings from
>> this.  Will gzip and post when it finishes.  It's generating a lot
>> of warnings; I have no idea how many are PostgreSQL problems and
>> how many are false positives; will just post the whole set FWIW.  I
>> am using the 3.4 development nightly snapshot with these commands:
>
> When I tried out scan-build a while ago, the results were kind of
> disappointing - there were lots of false positives. Clearly the tool
> was inferior to Coverity at that time. I'd be interested to see if
> there has been much improvement since.

Perhaps it will be of some value in terms of filing additional bug
reports with clang if it proves to have so many false positives
that it has little value in evaluating PostgreSQL code.

It does seem hard to believe that clang tools would find as enough
problems that were missed by Coverity and Valgrind to account for
all the warnings that are scrolling by; but it looks like it has
pointed out at least *one* problem that's worth fixing.

Ah, it finished.  Results attached; I haven't had time to review
them yet.

--
Kevin GrittnerEDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company