On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 09:03:21PM +0100, Philip Oakley wrote:
> In case other readers don't have a .xlsx reader here is Rick's list
> in plain text (may be white space damaged).
>
> I expect some will be false positives, and some will just be being
> too cautious.
>
> [...]
>
> description resourceFilePath fileName lineNumber
> nullPointer(CppCheck) \git-master\builtin\add.c add.c 286
Hm. That code in v1.8.3.4 reads:
if (pathspec)
while (pathspec[pc])
pc++;
What's the problem? If pathspec is not properly terminated, we can run
off the end, but I do see anything to indicate that is the case. What
does the "nullPointer" check mean here?
> wrongPrintfScanfArgNum(CppCheck) \git-master\builtin\fetch.c
> fetch.c 588
Line 588 does not have formatted I/O at all. Are these line numbers
somehow not matching what I have in v1.8.3.4?
> nullPointer(CppCheck) \git-master\builtin\ls-files.c ls-files.c
> 144
This one looks like:
if (tag && *tag && show_valid_bit &&
(ce->ce_flags & CE_VALID)) {
static char alttag[4];
memcpy(alttag, tag, 3);
if (isalpha(tag[0]))
where the final line is 144. But we have explicitly checked that tag is not
NULL...
> doubleFree(CppCheck) \git-master\builtin\notes.c notes.c 275
This one looks like:
if (...) {
free(buf);
die(...);
}
...
free(buf);
which might look like a double free if you do not know that die() will
never return (it is properly annotated for gcc, but I don't know whether
CppCheck understands such things).
So out of the 4 entries I investigated, none of them looks like an
actual problem. But I'm not even sure I am looking at the right place;
these don't even seem like things that would cause a false positive in a
static analyzer.
-Peff
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html