On 11/09/2011 03:55 PM, Alan Coopersmith wrote: > On 11/08/11 21:15, Peter Hutterer wrote: >> Yes, we're likely corrupting memory here but really this is unlikely to be >> triggered other than a real bug in the server. In which case a stacktrace is >> going to be more useful than any silent error handling. > > Is it going to cause static analyzers to issue false alarms because we're > checking for cases that should cause failures but allowing them to happen?
I think this would be better for static analyzers. If there's a return on error, the analyzer may see that as "correct" error handling. However, allowing it to go through may be caught by the analyzer as a bug. That's assuming static analyzers could see this type of bug at all. -- Chase _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
