On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Kevin Grittner <kgri...@ymail.com> wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: > >> I have tracked scan-build for some time, and I'm sure that almost >> all of these bugs are false positives at this point. > > From poking around, I agree. One particular error I noticed that > it makes a lot is that in a loop it says that an assigned value is > not referenced if the reference will not be hit until the next > iteration of the loop. > >> Btw., you can also keep score here: >> http://pgci.eisentraut.org/jenkins/view/PostgreSQL/job/postgresql_master_scan-build/ > > Cool. I wasn't aware that anyone was already looking at this. > >> It's worth keeping an eye on this, but it's not worth losing >> sleep over. > > Agreed in general; however, with this 3.4 development build the > "Memory Error" section only showed two problems, and those were the > only two problems I found that were real. It might be worth > monitoring that one section. > > If nobody objects, I'll fix that small memory leak in the > regression test driver. Hopefully someone more familiar with > pg_basebackup will fix the double-free (and related problems > mentioned by Tom) in streamutil.c. Well, how about the use of the unintialized values?
I did not check any with the long path lengths, but the `pqsecure_write` in fe-secure.c looks valid to me. `spinfo` is declared, Clang builds/finds the path, then the unitializaed `spinfo` is used in `RESTORE_SIGPIPE(conn, spinfo);`. Anyway, I don't mean to sound argumentative. Jeff -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers