On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 11:59 PM, Rob Landley <[email protected]> wrote: > On 02/06/2017 07:20 AM, Denys Vlasenko wrote: >> I'm not using their runtime debug thing (I don't even know what it is), >> if some people would use it and find real bugs, it's good for me. > > It's your call what to merge into busybox (and I see you already did), I > was trying to figure out if I should make an analogous change to toybox > (since I originally wrote this code and am using it there too). > > As far as I can tell the change is just churn: there's no even > theoretical reproduction sequence for a bug because there's no bug. Just > tea leaf reading about what future compilers might someday do, but which > the past several decades of linux and other unixes consistently haven't > had an issue with (and such a change would break more than just busybox). > >> Therefore, I'm willing to help them to not have false positives >> which make their life harder. Well, unless they want some intrusive >> and ugly changes. These changes were not. > > My attitude towards false positives may have been influenced by people > running static checkers against toybox and submitting long spreadsheets > of results, which I've spent hours going through and writing up my > analysis of each hit
Understandable. I also wouldn't be happy if somebody dumps a ton of half-cooked analysis "results" on me. These guys did not do anything like that. They asked to change code in just a couple of locations so that they get fewer false positives with some analysis tool. I decided I can do that for them, even though I don't see these changes as particularly useful. _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
