Re: sparse (static analyzer) report

Ah, so you beat me to it Neil. ;) Out of curiosity, how much worse
was it before you started fixing things?

Mark

On Sat, Jan 15, 2005 at 01:30:37PM +1100, Neil Conway wrote:
> 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.