On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 7:02 AM, Amit Shah <amit.s...@redhat.com> wrote: > On (Tue) Jan 12 2010 [19:35:08], Blue Swirl wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 6:13 PM, Amit Shah <amit.s...@redhat.com> wrote: >> > Hello, >> > >> > Here's a run of the clang analyzer on qemu sources for the x86_64 >> > target. >> > >> > See >> > >> > http://amitshah.fedorapeople.org/clang-output/2010-01-12-9/ >> > >> > for the results. >> > >> > There are a few results there which look dubious but a lot of the output >> > can be useful to fix the bugs. >> > >> > What's nice about the tool is that the output is the source code >> > annotated with the branch decisions that were taken to point out to the >> > case where a bug would be triggered. >> > >> > Doing this for all the targets takes a really long time plus lots of >> > disk space (I stopped the compile at 400M of clang output). >> > >> > If there's interest in this kind of result, I can post a link to the >> > list every week or so. However, some bugs reported make it slightly less >> > appealing as real bugs could get lost in the noise. >> >> I'd be very interested in the results of Sparc32 and Sparc64 analyses. > > OK, I added the two targets to the run and got the following result: > > http://amitshah.fedorapeople.org/clang-output/2010-01-13-1/ > > The bug count went up from 95 for just x86-64 to 131. > > However, a lot of these are dups as files get recompiled for each > target.
Thanks. I fixed the warnings related to Sparc32. Were there really no new warnings for Sparc64?
