On 11/11/13, 1:33 AM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> The analyzer is reporting some findings, and some of the findings look
> legitimate.
We have been tracking clang scan-build results for some time, and fixed
quite a few of them. Most of the remaining ones are false positives.
Maybe there are still a f
[moving the discussion to pgsql-hackers]
Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> The Analyzer is invoked with scan-build. Its used when compiling
> the package because it performs static analysis.
>
> The Santizers are invoked with the runtime flags. They are used
> with the `check` program because they perform
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 2:00 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
>> Would someone know the best way to get this to the right folks?
>>
>> Thanks in advance. (And sorry reporting to pgsql-general - the
>> developer list states emails must go elsewhere first).
>
> IMHO pgsql-hackers is the right audience for
Hi,
On 11 Listopad 2013, 7:33, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> I've been tasked with a quick acceptance check of Postgres for an
> upcoming project. It's a quick check, so its limited to Clang's
> analyzer and sanitizers.
>
> The analyzer is reporting some findings, and some of the findings look
> legitim
I've been tasked with a quick acceptance check of Postgres for an
upcoming project. It's a quick check, so its limited to Clang's
analyzer and sanitizers.
The analyzer is reporting some findings, and some of the findings look
legitimate.
For example, it looks like there's a double `free` occurrin
