Le 12/06/2016 19:39, Richard Heck a écrit :
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.
Interesting. What comment should I add to a function declaration to
inform that a returned pointer cannot be null, by design?
