On 11/30/2009 10:39 AM, Peter Jones wrote: > On 11/27/2009 02:25 PM, Casey Dahlin wrote: >> On 11/27/2009 06:03 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: >>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 03:28:19AM -0500, Gregory Maxwell wrote: >>>> A literal zero prior to preprocessing is either a bug, or some kind >>>> of dead- >>>> code causing place-holder. >>> >>> Not necessarily .. the C code itself may be generated from >>> something else. >>> >>> Rich. >>> >> >> In which case the C code is no longer "source" and should be excluded >> from the analysis. > > No, when swig (or whatever) produces bad code, we still want the compiler to > identify it and toss it. It's then up to the packager to realize it's swig > producing the bad code, but it isn't magically good code that doesn't result > in real bugs. > The compiler isn't doing these checks, but point taken. On a tangent, what of these checks if any should be put into the compiler? Compile-time bounds checking of library functions is kind of "magical" and un-C-like, but its not unprecedented (printf argument checking for example). --CJD -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
