On 05.10.2015 18:28, Daniel wrote:
>> So if were to clear the scan-build warnings on that topic, mostly by
>> converting to assert, then when the dust settles we could perhaps mass
>> convert the remaining DBG_ASSERTs to SAL_WARN
>
> Is the conversion of DBG_ASSERTs to assert + SAL_WARN something
On 10/04/2015 10:34 PM, Daniel wrote:
I just built the LO core with scan-build, a static analysis tool. I
posted the results to my github page. The report can be viewed at
http://danlrobertson.github.io/scan.html. With coverity scan etc I'm not
sure if this will provide any new info, but if
Hello Daniel,
Il 04/10/2015 22:34, Daniel ha scritto:
I just built the LO core with scan-build, a static analysis tool. I
posted the results to my github page. The report can be viewed at
http://danlrobertson.github.io/scan.html. With coverity scan etc I'm not
sure if this will provide any new
> the problem is, should a legacy assertion be converted to assert or to
> SAL_WARN. that is easy to answer in some cases (like when a pointer is
> asserted not to be null that is then unconditionally dereferenced), but
> in general requires some thought about whether it is trying to detect an
>
> I happened to look at the same set of DeadStore issues the other day via
> clang-tidy (which is another driver that can use the same static
> analyzers as scan-build, among others), but many of the more mundane
> fixes are still only on my hard drive (I pushed a few of them earlier
> today;
On 10/05/2015 02:54 PM, Daniel wrote:
I happened to look at the same set of DeadStore issues the other day via
clang-tidy (which is another driver that can use the same static
analyzers as scan-build, among others), but many of the more mundane
fixes are still only on my hard drive (I pushed a
On Mon, 2015-10-05 at 10:29 +0200, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
> your rather short list of 1385 issues looks more
> promising now
The majority of those "Called C++ object pointer is null" are the
examples of archaic DBG_ASSERT and OSL_ENSURE, etc macros which could
be converted into "assert" because
> So if were to clear the scan-build warnings on that topic, mostly by
> converting to assert, then when the dust settles we could perhaps mass
> convert the remaining DBG_ASSERTs to SAL_WARN
Is the conversion of DBG_ASSERTs to assert + SAL_WARN something we could
add as an EasyHack? I also
I just built the LO core with scan-build, a static analysis tool. I
posted the results to my github page. The report can be viewed at
http://danlrobertson.github.io/scan.html. With coverity scan etc I'm not
sure if this will provide any new info, but if you're interested, please
feel free to check
