On 28/01/2015 10:58, Markus Armbruster wrote: > I examined the differences between local scans with and without a > derived model file for GLib, to gauge what we're missing (the Coverity > Scan service we use can't do derived model files). Doesn't look bad, > but a few missed memory leaks caught my attention. I improved our > model file to catch them (PATCH 1+2). Topped off with PATCH 3 to > catch mixing up g_free() and free(). > > Markus Armbruster (3): > coverity: Improve model for GLib memory allocation > coverity: Model GLib string allocation partially > coverity: Model g_free() isn't necessarily free() > > scripts/coverity-model.c | 228 > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------- > 1 file changed, 193 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-) >
Acked-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> It's missing a patch to add a MAINTAINERS entry though! :) Paolo
