On 2017-04-24, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Le 22/04/17 à 09:26, Liviu Andronic a écrit :
>> I still think this is a bug/shortcoming of coverity. I should not
>> have to do that.
>> In such cases maybe we should just flag it as a false positive then.
> This is what I had done. However,
Le 22/04/17 à 09:26, Liviu Andronic a écrit :
I still think this is a bug/shortcoming of coverity. I should not
have to do that.
In such cases maybe we should just flag it as a false positive then.
This is what I had done. However, I think that changing the code in a
reasonable way
On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
wrote:
> Le 08/04/2017 à 19:38, Richard Heck a écrit :
>
>> I saw that. It looks like a good solution, and it makes the code no less
>> readable.
>>
>
> It took me a lot of time to think about this. At some time my plan was
Le 08/04/2017 à 19:38, Richard Heck a écrit :
I saw that. It looks like a good solution, and it makes the code no less
readable.
It took me a lot of time to think about this. At some time my plan was
to use try/catch, but I do not like adding such a construct in a
situation where I know that
On 04/08/2017 09:11 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Le 27/03/2017 à 17:04, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit :
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I have an issue with a coverity issue (err...). In the attached
>> screenshot, coverity tells me, as I see it that buffer() may throw an
>> exception. But my reading of
Le 27/03/2017 à 17:04, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit :
Dear all,
I have an issue with a coverity issue (err...). In the attached
screenshot, coverity tells me, as I see it that buffer() may throw an
exception. But my reading of the code is that this can not happen
because of isBufferLoaded().
Dear all,
I have an issue with a coverity issue (err...). In the attached
screenshot, coverity tells me, as I see it that buffer() may throw an
exception. But my reading of the code is that this can not happen
because of isBufferLoaded().
Did I miss something? Otherwise I will need to