On 10/19/2011 03:51 AM, Jon Povey wrote:
openocd-development-boun...@lists.berlios.de wrote:
I'd like to see patches having to pass clang static analyzer
unscathed before they're ready for review :-)
I had a quick look at that output, interesting.
Some looked like real bugs, but others it seems clang was getting
it wrong.. like if (ptr == NULL) checks which it thought failed,
but then it complained about a null ptr dereference.
It seemed to get if (!ptr) right though, which I think is preferred
linux kernel style.
There are some other issues which might make passing the static analyzer
be a bad prerequisite for patches. See "Important Points to Consider", here:
http://clang-analyzer.llvm.org/index.html
In short, it's very slow (took over an hour to get through with OpenOCD
on my machine), and it's susceptible to false positives.
Best,
Marti
_______________________________________________
Openocd-development mailing list
Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
