Re: clang's static checker report.

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Grzegorz Jaskiewicz <gj(at)pointblue(dot)com(dot)pl>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: clang's static checker report.
Date: 2009-09-14 05:04:05
Message-ID: 1289.1252904645@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Grzegorz Jaskiewicz <gj(at)pointblue(dot)com(dot)pl> writes:
> usual round of updates to the scan report.
> Today's report available at:

> http://zlew.org/postgresql_static_check/scan-build-2009-09-12-1/

Looks like the clang guys still have some work to do. The
null-dereference reports, in particular, seem to be willing to make
self-contradictory assumptions in order to claim there is a possibility
of a null dereference. The clearest example I found was this one:
http://zlew.org/postgresql_static_check/scan-build-2009-09-12-1/report-Ybdv3J.html#EndPath
where to conclude that lp might be null, clang first assumes
PageGetMaxOffsetNumber(page) < offnum (at line 4251); but it then
must assume that that is *false* in order to suppose that control
can arrive at the dereference inside ItemIdIsNormal at line 4254.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Stehule 2009-09-14 05:06:39 Re: Issues for named/mixed function notation patch
Previous Message Scott Mohekey 2009-09-14 04:29:03 Timestamp to time_t