On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 8:07 PM, Jeff Trawick <[email protected]> wrote: > (adding dev@apr, since some of the report covers apr code) > > > There are some harmless bugs, some bugs which are truly useful to fix > beyond "cleanness", and false positives. I can't tell you how many of > each ;) > > I'm sure some of the items will be fixed just because you posted this > (thanks). Feel free to submit patches yourself. Many of the > individual reports are tedius to research, only to find that the code > is correct :( > > FWLIW, some of us went through one of these reports last year and > cleaned up a bunch of issues that generated clang warnings. >
I honestly didnt realize that clang has been used to analyze Apache not too long ago; in the future I guess I should do better research before posting stuff. Im sorry to hear that there were quite a few false positives. Please note that the devs of clang are very interested in reducing the amount of false positives that it finds. So if someone does find a false positive, perhaps it would be nice to report it : http://clang-analyzer.llvm.org/filing_bugs.html Of course, that requires serious effort, which people may simply be unable to offer.
