Kevin Grittner <kgri...@ymail.com> writes: > Does anything stand out as something that is particularly worth > looking into? Does anything here seem worth assuming is completely > bogus because of the Coverity and Valgrind passes?
I thought most of it was obvious junk: if there were actually uninitialized-variable bugs in the bison grammar, for instance, not only we but half the programs on the planet would be coredumping all the time. Not to mention that valgrind testing would certainly have caught it. I'd suggest looking only at the reports that pertain to seldom-exercised code paths, as those would be the places where actual bugs might possibly have escaped notice. One thought for the Clang people is that most of the reports such as "null pointer dereference" presumably mean "I think I see an execution path whereby we could get here with a null pointer". If so, it'd be awfully helpful if the complaint included some description of what that path is. I think Coverity does that, or at least I've seen output from some tool that does it. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers