| 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 | Resend email |
| 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.
| 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. |