Re: Clang static analyser results

[Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1108 bytes --]


> On Mar 3, 2016, at 11:21 AM, Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 10:56:33PM -0800, Khem Raj wrote:
>> 
>>> On Mar 2, 2016, at 10:32 PM, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> All,
>>> 
>>> I ran clang static analyser on tip of git today for x86_64 build. The results are here
> 
> Thanks!
> 
>>> https://busybox.net/~kraj/scan-build-2016-03-02-222206-32091-1/
>> 
>> and
>> 
>> https://busybox.net/~kraj/scan-build-2016-03-02-225259-30448-1/
>> 
>> is arm cross built with clang as CC
> 
> Any idea why the results are different for arm? Most of the code where
> things are reported does not differ by arch.

ARM is cross compiled using clang itself while x86_64 was using native gcc.
another difference is that arm was using clang 3.8 for static analysis while
x86_64 was using clang 3.7
> 
> I think everything reported has been investigated before and found to
> be false positives. Do any of them look new/interesting?

I did not look into details myself yet, its good to know that nothing new is found
we want to keep it that way

[-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 204 bytes --]