Re: Clang 3.3 Analyzer Results

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>
To: noloader(at)gmail(dot)com
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Clang 3.3 Analyzer Results
Date: 2013-11-11 22:51:34
Message-ID: CAM3SWZSMVVaKoDDW7V+L3mGZggSj0nNG1zSGrTtDoy_w+9J0LA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Jeffrey Walton <noloader(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I think you are right. Coverity is a very nice tool, and Clang has
> some growing to do.

To be fair to the LLVM/Clang guys, it's not as if static analysis is a
very high priority for them.

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeffrey Walton 2013-11-11 22:51:52 Re: Clang 3.3 Analyzer Results
Previous Message Jeffrey Walton 2013-11-11 22:45:23 Re: Clang 3.3 Analyzer Results

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeffrey Walton 2013-11-11 22:51:52 Re: Clang 3.3 Analyzer Results
Previous Message David Johnston 2013-11-11 22:50:39 Re: pg_dump and pg_dumpall in real life