On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Anna Zaks <zaks.a...@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 <pe...@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 -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
