On Sat, Jun 04 2022, Phillip Wood wrote:
> Hi Ævar
>
> [This is an old address that I only have webmail access to, please use
> phillip.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxxx when cc'ing me]
Hrm, I just grabbed it from an old commit of yours I found. Consider
sending in a patch to update .mailmap :)
>> On 03 June 2022 at 19:37 Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Change the strbuf_grow() function so that GCC v12's -fanalyze doesn't
>> yell at us about sb->buf[0] dereferencing NULL, this also makes this
>> code easier to follow.
>>
>> This BUG() should be unreachable since the state of our "sb->buf" and
>> "sb->alloc" goes hand-in-hand, but -fanalyzer isn't smart enough to
>> know that, and adding the BUG() also makes it clearer to human readers
>> that that's what happens here.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> strbuf.c | 2 ++
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/strbuf.c b/strbuf.c
>> index dd9eb85527a..61c4630aeeb 100644
>> --- a/strbuf.c
>> +++ b/strbuf.c
>> @@ -97,6 +97,8 @@ void strbuf_grow(struct strbuf *sb, size_t extra)
>> if (new_buf)
>> sb->buf = NULL;
>> ALLOC_GROW(sb->buf, sb->len + extra + 1, sb->alloc);
>> + if (new_buf && !sb->buf)
>> + BUG("for a new buffer ALLOC_GROW() should always do work!");
>
> This is a bit ugly, have you tried adding
> __attribute__((malloc (free), returns_nonnull))
> to xmalloc() and xrealloc() ?
>
Will try to experiment with that, perhaps GCC can be massaged to grok
this somehow.
I do vaguely remember (but couldn't track down where it was) that we
have some config for coverity for this function, due to it also having
trouble with it.
