Re: clang's static checker report.

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Grzegorz Jaskiewicz <gj(at)pointblue(dot)com(dot)pl>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: clang's static checker report.
Date: 2009-08-27 17:59:01
Message-ID: 17135.1251395941@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> (do you have to mark every function that calls ereport(ERROR) as one
> that exits?)

That would be an open-ended project, and probably in many cases wouldn't
change the clang report anyway. I think it's only worth worrying about
the ones that we find will suppress some false positives.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2009-08-27 18:04:00 Re: pretty print viewdefs
Previous Message Alex Hunsaker 2009-08-27 17:41:05 Re: clang's static checker report.