On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 3:47 PM, John Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
that wasn't really my point; I'm sure that your posting will prompt some new fixes (i.e., "good for you") > > 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.
