On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Kevin Grittner <kgri...@ymail.com> writes: >> 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 thought most of it was obvious junk: if there were actually > uninitialized-variable bugs in the bison grammar, for instance, not only > we but half the programs on the planet would be coredumping all the time. > Not to mention that valgrind testing would certainly have caught it. > > I'd suggest looking only at the reports that pertain to seldom-exercised > code paths, as those would be the places where actual bugs might possibly > have escaped notice. Clang also has a page "FAQ and How to Deal with Common False Positives," http://clang-analyzer.llvm.org/faq.html. It demonstrates how to force analysis on a path.
Jeff -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
