On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Anna Zaks <zaks.anna@gmail.com> wrote:
> I opened an analyzer Bugzilla report for this issue in case you 'd
> like to follow up there:
> http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=13010
Thanks, I'll try to schedule another run tonight and post additional
details on that ticket.
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 4:02 AM, Peter Geoghegan <peter@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> I saw a number of false positives when I ran the Clang static analyser
> a few months ago. As I recall, I could see why the tool concluded that
> certain lines of code may have contained errors, even though it was
> evident to me that they actually did not. That said, it probably
> wouldn't hurt to give it another try sometime soon.
Yeah, there seems to be a lot of noise in the results, but I found
them interesting nonetheless. I put up the HTML report at:
http://kupershmidt.org/pg/scan-build-2012-05-31-1/
since it's way too big to mail even a tarball. It's too bad the clang
doesn't understand our ereport(ERROR, ...) calls don't return to the
caller, as those seem to account for a fair bit of the spurious
warnings. I haven't seen anything which I'd call an outright bug,
though there are e.g. non-kosher uses of malloc() which could
certainly be improved.
Hrm, I wonder if proc_exit() and ExitPostmaster() could be declared
with __attribute__((noreturn)) , that seems like it would quiet a few
errors.
Josh