- I've also tried to provide fixes for some (until I got both tired and
unable to fix those that result from the ASN.1 definitions) in
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5858.
- CLANG static analyzer was also quite helpful in finding issues. It just
takes hours to compile wireshark with it.
- First time I've heard of ptvcursors. Nice.
Y.
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 5:51 AM, Bill Meier <wme...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On 7/13/2011 7:38 PM, Guy Harris wrote:
>
>>
>> Haven't you (and maybe others) been fixing the same issues already,
>> as a result of Coverity warnings about the same thing?
>>
>> And how many of those are
>>
>> static void
>> dissect_whatever(...)
>> {
>>
>> ...
>>
>> proto_tree_add_item(tree, hf_foo, tvb, offset, len_foo, encoding);
>> offset += len_foo;
>> proto_tree_add_item(tree, hf_bar, tvb, offset, len_bar, encoding);
>> offset += len_bar;
>> }
>>
>> and how many of those ultimately represent dissectors that should be
>> converted to use ptvcursors, in which case the "offset +=" stuff will
>> disappear into the ptvcursor code and not get whined about by dataflow
>> analyzers?
>>
>
> I'd have to go back and look but I guess that some of the "Coverity
> [unused]" defects for the dissectors were related to the pattern as shown
> above:
> {
> ...
> offset += ...;
> }
>
>
>
> However, ISTR that many more were related to the following pattern:
> {
> ...
> foo = proto_tree_add_item(...);
> offset += ...;
> foo = proto_tree_add_item(...);
> ...
> }
>
> Others were real bugs (such doing 'foo=proto_item_add_subtree()' and then
> failing to use the returned value in following 'proto_tree_add_item()'
> calls.
>
> At some point I stopped fixing "Coverity [unused]" even though ISTR that
> were (at least a few) more "unused" defects yet to be fixed.
>
> Some time later I started working on the GCC 4.6 "set-but-unused" warnings.
>
> I now see (after doing a little research) that it appears that the "unused"
> defects found by Coverity were only a subset of the "unused-but-set" cases
> found by GCC 4.6.
>
> I don't know what the pattern is for things not found by Coverity but I do
> note that many cases like the following weren't found by Coverity:
>
> {
> ...
> int foo;
> ...
> foo = ...;
> ...
> }
>
>
> In any case: Since much of the "Coverity [unused"" dissector cases have
> already been fixed, much of the remaining (non-generated) dissector
> "set-but-not-used" cases seem to be for stuff not found by "Coverity
> [unused]".
>
> (See SVN #37716 for many examples of this type of fix).
>
>
>
> ______________________________**______________________________**
> _______________
> Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org>
> Archives:
> http://www.wireshark.org/**lists/wireshark-dev<http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev>
> Unsubscribe:
> https://wireshark.org/mailman/**options/wireshark-dev<https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev>
>
> mailto:wireshark-dev-request@**wireshark.org<wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org>
> ?subject=**unsubscribe
>
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org>
Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
