On 12/04/2026 21:05, Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas <[email protected]> writes:
Pushed 0001 as commit 6f5ad00ab7.

This commit has caused Coverity to start complaining that
most of ginExtractEntries() is unreachable:

*** CID 1691468:         Control flow issues  (DEADCODE)
/srv/coverity/git/pgsql-git/postgresql/src/backend/access/gin/ginutil.c: 495    
         in ginExtractEntries()
489             /*
490              * Scan the items for any NULLs.  All NULLs are considered 
equal, so we
491              * just need to check and remember if there are any.  We remove 
them from
492              * the array here, and after deduplication, put back one NULL 
entry to
493              * represent them all.
494              */
     CID 1691468:         Control flow issues  (DEADCODE)
     Execution cannot reach this statement: "hasNull = false;".
495             hasNull = false;
496             if (nullFlags)
497             {
498                     int32           numNonNulls = 0;
499
500                     for (int32 i = 0; i < nentries; i++)

Evidently, it does not realize that the extractValueFn() can change
nentries from its initial value of zero.  I wouldn't be too surprised
if that's related to our casting of the pointer to uintptr_t --- that
may cause it to not see the passed pointer as a potential reference
mechanism.

I would just write that off as Coverity not being smart enough, except
that I'm worried that some compiler might make a similar deduction and
break the function completely.  Was the switch to a local variable
for nentries really a useful win performance-wise?

I didn't do it for performance, but because I find the function easier to read that way. We could change it back.

It's a pretty scary thought that a compiler might misoptimize that though. In the same function we have 'nullFlags', too, as a local variable, even before this commit. Not sure why Coverity doesn't complain about that.

/*
 * PointerGetDatum
 *              Returns datum representation for a pointer.
 */
static inline Datum
PointerGetDatum(const void *X)
{
        return (Datum) (uintptr_t) X;
}

Hmm, is that 'const' incorrect? This function doesn't modify *X, but the resulting address will be used to modify it. Maybe changing it to non-const "void *X" would give Coverity a hint.

- Heikki



Reply via email to