From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from acme.spoerlein.net (acme.spoerlein.net [88.198.49.12])
	by krisdoz.my.domain (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p9D9tROw013329
	for <tech@mdocml.bsd.lv>; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 05:55:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (acme.spoerlein.net [IPv6:2a01:4f8:131:23c2::1])
	by acme.spoerlein.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p9D9tPOI025813
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO)
	for <tech@mdocml.bsd.lv>; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 11:55:25 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from uqs@spoerlein.net)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=spoerlein.net;
	s=dkim200908; t=1318499725;
	bh=24n0uJE+P1L8sK9vjokGcbWVL+IWlovZvLlH0KUvcHM=;
	h=Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version:
	 Content-Type:In-Reply-To;
	b=lEB/Q3bj18abovVgJ0ooCUnZi8EQ7HeTtLc75iZCwJHSWX2hbj7BNXNcCWXhORIRs
	 H2gBsetDmmwOini649IqWHYvE3KSHsHxDjKCwR7AxwHlTIa8MI95GPyGaUZriYDLB/
	 /7LN0pMLq110Cvx7XoxSlxM8VtukJFiY4K2NCPA8=
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 11:55:25 +0200
From: Ulrich =?utf-8?B?U3DDtnJsZWlu?= <uqs@spoerlein.net>
To: tech@mdocml.bsd.lv
Subject: Re: mdocml version 1.12.0 available
Message-ID: <20111013095525.GM26743@acme.spoerlein.net>
References: <4E90B130.3080008@bsd.lv>
 <20111011145641.GA25314@britannica.bec.de>
 <20111013005045.GH28987@iris.usta.de>
X-Mailinglist: mdocml-tech
Reply-To: tech@mdocml.bsd.lv
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20111013005045.GH28987@iris.usta.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

On Thu, 2011-10-13 at 02:50:45 +0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> Hi Joerg,
> 
> Joerg Sonnenberger wrote on Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 04:56:41PM +0200:
> 
> > Attached is the report from clang -analyze. Food for thought ;)
> 
> Thanks for sending these.
> Below is a patch to improve style at a few places,
> none of these are bugs, though.
> No regressions according to my tests.
> 
> A few more reports are valid, but i suggest to keep those redundant
> initializations because it is non-trivial to figure out that all
> branches actually set a value, so it's safer to initialize up
> front, especially in view of potential future code changes.
> 
> Two complaints might be bogus:
> 
> > /home/joerg/work/NetBSD/cvs/src/external/bsd/mdocml/bin/mandoc/../../dist/mdoc_term.c:617:7: warning: Access to field 'prev' results in a dereference of a null pointer (loaded from variable 'n')
> >                 if (n->prev && MDOC_It == n->prev->tok) {
> >                     ^
> > /home/joerg/work/NetBSD/cvs/src/external/bsd/mdocml/bin/mandoc/../../dist/mdoc_term.c:611:7: warning: Access to field 'prev' results in a dereference of a null pointer (loaded from variable 'n')
> >                 if (n->prev && MDOC_It == n->prev->tok)
> >                     ^
> 
> I have no idea why clang thinks n might be NULL here.
> Do you understand that?
> Or is this just a false positive?

print_bvspace could have been called with n being NULL. Perhaps the HTML
report is little bit more helpful:
https://www.spoerlein.net/scan-build/mdocml/2011-10-13-1/report-qHe1Tf.html#EndPath

hth
Uli
--
 To unsubscribe send an email to tech+unsubscribe@mdocml.bsd.lv