Hi Bruno,
Am Mo., 5. Apr. 2021 um 15:02 Uhr schrieb Bruno Haible <[email protected]>:
> Hi Marc,
>
> > * tests/test-hamt.c: New file.
>
> Can you please have a quick look whether these Coverity findings (from our
> weekly Coverity run) are relevant?
>
Coverity seems to be a good tool. I haven't yet tested GCC's new static
analyzer.
>
> ________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> *** CID 1503613: Null pointer dereferences (REVERSE_INULL)
> /gllib/hamt.c: 876 in bucket_do_while()
> 870 size_t cnt = 0;
> 871 size_t elt_count = bucket->elt_count;
> 872 Hamt_entry *const *elts = bucket->elts;
> 873 for (size_t i = 0; i < elt_count; ++i)
> 874 {
> 875 *success = proc (elts[i], data);
> >>> CID 1503613: Null pointer dereferences (REVERSE_INULL)
> >>> Null-checking "success" suggests that it may be null, but it has
> already been dereferenced on all paths leading to the check.
> 876 if (!success)
> 877 return cnt;
> 878 ++cnt;
> 879 }
> 880 return cnt;
> 881 }
>
Correct finding. It should be "!*success".
>
> ________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> *** CID 1503612: Uninitialized variables (UNINIT)
> /gllib/hamt.c: 952 in hamt_iterator()
> 946 Hamt_iterator iter;
> 947 iter.hamt = hamt_copy (hamt);
> 948 Hamt_entry *entry = hamt->root;
> 949 if (entry == NULL)
> 950 {
> 951 iter.depth = -1;
> >>> CID 1503612: Uninitialized variables (UNINIT)
> >>> Using uninitialized value "iter". Field "iter.path" is
> uninitialized.
> 952 return iter;
> 953 }
> 954 iter.depth = 0;
> 955 iter.path = 0;
> 956 iter.position = 0;
> 957 while (iter.entry[iter.depth] = entry, entry_type (entry) ==
> subtrie_entry)
>
>
Irrelevant, but I guess the warning can be silenced by moving up the
initialization of "iter.path" and "iter.position".
>
> ________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> *** CID 1503618: Incorrect expression (PW.ASSIGN_WHERE_COMPARE_MEANT)
> /gltests/test-hamt.c: 155 in ()
> 149 ASSERT (hamt_do_while (hamt2, proc, &flag) == 4);
> 150 ASSERT (sum == 52);
> 151
> 152 hamt1 = hamt_remove (hamt2, &x4);
> 153 sum = 0;
> 154 ASSERT (hamt_do_while (hamt2, proc, &flag) == 4);
> >>> CID 1503618: Incorrect expression (PW.ASSIGN_WHERE_COMPARE_MEANT)
> >>> use of "=" where "==" may have been intended
> 155 ASSERT (sum = 52);
> 156 sum = 0;
> 157 ASSERT (hamt_do_while (hamt1, proc, &flag) == 3);
> 158 ASSERT (sum = 48);
> 159
> 160 hamt_free (hamt1);
>
>
Correct observation.
>
> ________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> *** CID 1503615: Incorrect expression (PW.ASSIGN_WHERE_COMPARE_MEANT)
> /gltests/test-hamt.c: 158 in ()
> 152 hamt1 = hamt_remove (hamt2, &x4);
> 153 sum = 0;
> 154 ASSERT (hamt_do_while (hamt2, proc, &flag) == 4);
> 155 ASSERT (sum = 52);
> 156 sum = 0;
> 157 ASSERT (hamt_do_while (hamt1, proc, &flag) == 3);
> >>> CID 1503615: Incorrect expression (PW.ASSIGN_WHERE_COMPARE_MEANT)
> >>> use of "=" where "==" may have been intended
> 158 ASSERT (sum = 48);
> 159
> 160 hamt_free (hamt1);
> 161 hamt_free (hamt2);
> 162 free_element (y5);
> 163 }
>
Dito.
>
> ________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> *** CID 1503614: (ASSERT_SIDE_EFFECT)
> /gltests/test-hamt.c: 158 in test_general()
> 152 hamt1 = hamt_remove (hamt2, &x4);
> 153 sum = 0;
> 154 ASSERT (hamt_do_while (hamt2, proc, &flag) == 4);
> 155 ASSERT (sum = 52);
> 156 sum = 0;
> 157 ASSERT (hamt_do_while (hamt1, proc, &flag) == 3);
> >>> CID 1503614: (ASSERT_SIDE_EFFECT)
> >>> Assignment "sum = 48" has a side effect. This code will work
> differently in a non-debug build.
> 158 ASSERT (sum = 48);
> 159
> 160 hamt_free (hamt1);
> 161 hamt_free (hamt2);
> 162 free_element (y5);
> 163 }
> /gltests/test-hamt.c: 155 in test_general()
> 149 ASSERT (hamt_do_while (hamt2, proc, &flag) == 4);
> 150 ASSERT (sum == 52);
> 151
> 152 hamt1 = hamt_remove (hamt2, &x4);
> 153 sum = 0;
> 154 ASSERT (hamt_do_while (hamt2, proc, &flag) == 4);
> >>> CID 1503614: (ASSERT_SIDE_EFFECT)
> >>> Assignment "sum = 52" has a side effect. This code will work
> differently in a non-debug build.
> 155 ASSERT (sum = 52);
> 156 sum = 0;
> 157 ASSERT (hamt_do_while (hamt1, proc, &flag) == 3);
> 158 ASSERT (sum = 48);
> 159
> 160 hamt_free (hamt1);
>
>
These are aftereffects.
I will push the fixes.
Thanks,
Marc
