Hi, With btrfs-progs needing & getting some more love I decided to run today's master through clang's very awesome static analyzer [1] to see what a more complete data flow analysis than gcc's -Wall yields. The results can be found at [2] and are somewhat reason for concern. =:)
Please note that even though all messages are typically "real" in the sense that they _could_ happen, it does not mean that they do during normal operation, since some codepaths might just be dynamic/rare. That being said, quite a few warnings seemed sufficiently serious to me that I decided to post this. For example there's IMHO no sane way zero-sized allocations make any sense. IMHO most dead stores are seemingly the easiest to fix (just remove the statement?), but some of them might actually be missing upstream error handling - indicative of something more serious. Dave, any suggestions on how best to proceed? Any preferences or would another branch be more interesting? I tried to track devel but that gets rebased frequently (or I'm doing something wrong). Btw running scan-build is easy: get clang, './configure' as usual and 'scan-build make -jX' will create the report in /tmp/scan-build-<time>. Let me know if this is helpful. cheers, Holger [1] http://clang-analyzer.llvm.org/scan-build.html [2] http://hoho.duckdns.org/~holger/btrfs-progs/scan-build-2016-03-01-130244-29106-1/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
