Am 20.05.2016 um 23:03 schrieb Simon Kelley: > Apologies for jumping the gun on you. As a general thing, a quick email > in reply to an rc1 announcement is enough to hold things until an issue > has been addressed. > > I checked those warnings, and they're all false positives. The static > analysis is clever, but not clever enough.
Hi Simon, Good to know, and thanks for looking. I took a false positive into account especially on the FreeBSD 9.3 warnings that are gone on 10.1; FreeBSD 9.3 uses a pretty old GCC version ("cc (GCC) 4.2.1 20070831 patched [FreeBSD]", ISTR it branched off before a license change), while FreeBSD 10.1 and 10.3 use clang 3.4.1. We can use other compilers, but I find it unnecessary to do for most projects written in C, it's more interesting for computing business when you're into OpenMP, C++11 or newer and the likes. > This release of dnsmasq has gone through a coverity scan, which is the > ultimate static analysis, AFAIK. Even that generates lots of false > positives, and rather then warp the code to make the analysis work, I > adopted a policy of marking warnings as "not an issue". Yeah, although in some cases an unneeded " = 0" or "= {0}" initialization calms all static analyzers at the same time. ;-) > Coverity builds under Linux, so the BSD-only code in the tree is not > checked that way, unfortunately. How much code is that, aside from a few API calls? I never bothered to take a closer look. > Thanks for committing 2.76. My pleasure. Cheers, Matthias _______________________________________________ Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss