On 06/12/2016 09:17 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Le 12/06/2016 15:05, Georg Baum a écrit : >> If others want to join the effort please keep in mind that the goal >> is not >> to get zero coverity errors, but to fix dangerous code. So if you do not >> understand an issue 100%, or understand it but do not know how to fix >> it, >> please keep it open. I did that for some of the errors reported by >> cppcheck, >> for example there is a NULL-pointer dereference at the end of >> copySelectionHelper() (which works in practice since it is only used >> to set >> a reference which is usually implemented as a pointer), but fixing this >> properly would be a big refactoring. > > Coverity allows to annotate false positives, which is a nice thing to > do. At least we get to see that it is marked and may disagree.
Yes, I marked quite a few of these. Coverity can't always tell, for example, whether a pointer may be null. We may have our own reasons to know it can't be if, say, we are in an LFUN that can only be issued when we have a document view. But these are all worth checking, it seems to me, and annotating, if only so that no-one else will have to check. Richard
