Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Thanks. I eyeballed all of them and they look safe, but this patch made > me wonder... > > Did you use some dataflow analysis tool to spot these? > > It will never scale if a human has to sanity check output from a > mechanical process like this patch, especially when the human is already a > chokepoint of the whole process (i.e. the maintainer). Yep, they were found with a little help of the clang static analyzer http://clang.llvm.org/StaticAnalysis.html It is in early stages of development so it may report false positives and it chokes on some files. Here is the latest output I have, with my patch applied: http://doktorz.mooltied.de/stuff/scan-build-2009-03-13-2/ I've looked briefly at the "Logic Errors" and they all seem to be false positives. I did not have enough time to look into all the remaining "Dead Stores" though. -- Benjamin -- 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
