Re: Clang 3.3 Analyzer Results

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> On 11/12/13, 8:18 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> Here is the summary of what was reported:
>>
>> All Bugs: 313
>
>> Does anything stand out as something that is particularly worth
>> looking into? Does anything here seem worth assuming is completely
>> bogus because of the Coverity and Valgrind passes?
>
> I have tracked scan-build for some time, and I'm sure that almost all of
> these bugs are false positives at this point.
>
> I have a private branch somewhere that I have badly hacked up (e.g.,
> hardcoding enable_assert = 1), which gets that number down to 251
> according to my latest notes. That's about the best you can hope for.
>
> Btw., you can also keep score here:
> http://pgci.eisentraut.org/jenkins/view/PostgreSQL/job/postgresql_master_scan-build/.
> This uses an older version of clang, so the number of bugs is lower,
> but the nature of the bugs is also more stupid. I plan to upgrade that
> at some point.
I thinks its good Postgres is using the tools and publishing the results.

The reports being generated with Clang 3.3 on Postgres 9.3.1 are
different that posted. For example, french.c is not listed in the
Clang 3.3 reports. What version of Clang is used in the online report?

Jeff