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

Re: clang's static checker report.

From: Grzegorz Jaskiewicz <gj(at)pointblue(dot)com(dot)pl>
To: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: clang's static checker report.
Date: 2009-08-30 17:09:39
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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  
all that.

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Jeff JanesDate: 2009-08-30 17:09:42
Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers] Daily digest v1.9430 (16 messages)
Previous:From: Greg StarkDate: 2009-08-30 17:07:51
Subject: Re: clang's static checker report.

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group