On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 06:45:08AM +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote: > >> > So nothing to see here, but since I spent 20 minutes scratching my head >> > (and I know others look at Coverity output and may scratch their heads >> > too), I thought it was worth writing up. And also if I'm wrong, it would >> > be good to know. ;) >> >> Thanks for looking into this. I agree with your analysis. >> >> I wonder whether it is the factor of two between path lengths and byte >> lengths that is confusing Coverity. Perhaps the patch below would help. >> It requires an extra, superfluous, check, but perhaps makes the code a >> tad more readable. I'm neutral on whether we would want to make the change. > > Yeah, I do agree that it makes the code's assumptions a bit easier to > follow. > >> Is there a way to ask Coverity whether a hypothetical change would >> remove the warning, short of merging the change to master? > > You can download and run the build portion of the coverity tools > yourself. [...] Thanks for the info. My suggested tweak doesn't appease Coverity. Given that, I don't think I'll bother adding it to the patch series. Michael
