On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 09:12:51AM +0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: > >I havn't been able to find any more serious issues in the Coverity > >report, now that they've fixed the ereport() issue. A number of the > >issues it complains about are things we already Assert() for. For the > >rest, as long as the following assumptions are true we're done (well, > >except for ECPG). I think they are true but it's always good to check: > > Everytime someone does this, we fix everything except ECPG. Surely it's > time we fixed ECPG as well?
I've got a patch (not by me) that should fix most of the issues. However, we have no way to test for regressions. So, that's why I suggested (elsewhere) someone get the ECPG regression stuff working so we can apply fixes and check they don't break anything... Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/ > From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to > litigate.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature