| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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
| 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 |