Re: Clang 3.3 Analyzer Results

Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@ymail.com> writes:
> It does seem hard to believe that clang tools would find as enough
> problems that were missed by Coverity and Valgrind to account for
> all the warnings that are scrolling by; but it looks like it has
> pointed out at least *one* problem that's worth fixing.

Yeah, that's the thing --- quite a lot of people have looked at
Postgres with Coverity already.  If Clang is throwing up lots and
lots of warnings, the odds are *very* high that most of them are
false positives.  Running through such a list to see if there's
anything real isn't all that exciting a prospect.
        regards, tom lane