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: 8E6FD914-9F55-405B-800A-C1E212480F93@pointblue.com.pl
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
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:
>> http://zlew.org/postgresql_static_check/scan-build-2009-08-30-3
>
> 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

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

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