On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 10:43 AM wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Please find the latest report on new defect(s) introduced to Apache Qpid
> dispatch-router found with Coverity Scan.
>
> 157 new defect(s) introduced to Apache Qpid dispatch-router found with
> Coverity Scan.
>
>
> New defect(s) Reported-by: Cover
On Mon, 2015-01-12 at 18:50 +, Gordon Sim wrote:
> On 01/12/2015 06:00 PM, Chuck Rolke wrote:
> > Visual Studio 2010 x64 generates five new warnings compiling LossyLvq code.
> > The code may be correct and the compiler is known to warn on correct code.
> > That said, if the code could be reorga
On 01/12/2015 06:00 PM, Chuck Rolke wrote:
Visual Studio 2010 x64 generates five new warnings compiling LossyLvq code.
The code may be correct and the compiler is known to warn on correct code.
That said, if the code could be reorganized to avoid the warnings maybe
Coverity would stop complaining
- Original Message -
> From: "Gordon Sim"
> To: dev@qpid.apache.org
> Sent: Monday, January 12, 2015 7:55:23 AM
> Subject: Re: New Defects reported by Coverity Scan for Apache-Qpid
>
> On 01/11/2015 10:06 PM, scan-ad...@coverity.com wrote:
> > Pl
On 01/11/2015 10:06 PM, scan-ad...@coverity.com wrote:
Please find the latest report on new defect(s) introduced to Apache-Qpid found
with Coverity Scan.
1 new defect(s) introduced to Apache-Qpid found with Coverity Scan.
7 defect(s), reported by Coverity Scan earlier, were marked fixed in the
On 11/07/2014 10:50 AM, Gordon Sim wrote:
One option would be to add a
QPID_LOG_NO_THROW(), say, that wraps the QPID_LOG() itself in a try/
catch. In the unlikely event of an exception there it would do nothing.
E.g. https://reviews.apache.org/r/27734
---
On 11/02/2014 10:49 PM, scan-ad...@coverity.com wrote:
Please find the latest report on new defect(s) introduced to Apache-Qpid found
with Coverity Scan.
2 new defect(s) introduced to Apache-Qpid found with Coverity Scan.
New defect(s) Reported-by: Coverity Scan
Showing 2 of 2 defect(s)
**
Great - thanks!
> -Original Message-
> From: Chuck Rolke [mailto:cro...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 6:10 PM
> To: dev@qpid.apache.org
> Subject: Re: New Defects reported by Coverity Scan for Apache-Qpid
>
> Yessir. I think I have a fix in passing with
Yessir. I think I have a fix in passing with another commit coming up.
-Chuck
- Original Message -
> From: "Steve Huston"
> To: dev@qpid.apache.org
> Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 6:05:57 PM
> Subject: RE: Fwd: New Defects reported by Coverity Scan for Apache-Qpid
>
> Great - thanks Alan
couldn't scan Java at that time.
>>
>> > -Original Message-
>> > From: philharveyonl...@googlemail.com
>> > [mailto:philharveyonl...@googlemail.com] On Behalf Of Phil Harvey
>> > Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 8:09 AM
>> > To: dev@
gt; > scan Java quite yet.
> > >
> > > If anyone would like to tackle the Java scans, and is not yet signed
> > > up at coverity.com, please let me know and I'll help get you going.
> > >
> > > From: Rob Godfrey [mailto:rob.j.godf...@gmail.com]
> &
ldn't scan Java at that
time.
> -Original Message-
> From: philharveyonl...@googlemail.com
> [mailto:philharveyonl...@googlemail.com] On Behalf Of Phil Harvey
> Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 8:09 AM
> To: dev@qpid.apache.org
> Subject: Re: New Defects reported by C
02, 2013 10:41 AM
> To: qpid
> Cc: Steve Huston
> Subject: Re: New Defects reported by Coverity Scan for Apache-Qpid
>
> As an aside, I notice that they seem to have enabled scanning of Java
> projects as well as C++ now... we should maybe look to see what a coverity
> scan of the Java code looks like
>
> -- Rob
>
>
>
Appears as if that minor code change did in fact eliminate those false-positive
locking errors.
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1498926
-K
- Original Message -
> From: scan-ad...@coverity.com
> To: dev@qpid.apache.org
> Sent: Sunday, July 7, 2013 5:40:46 PM
> Subjec
what it was actually doing.
>
>-K
>
>
>- Original Message -
>> From: "Ken Giusti"
>> To: dev@qpid.apache.org
>> Cc: shus...@riverace.com
>> Sent: Monday, July 1, 2013 6:46:55 PM
>> Subject: Re: New Defects reported by Coverity Scan for Apache-Qp
lp get you going.
From: Rob Godfrey [mailto:rob.j.godf...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 10:41 AM
To: qpid
Cc: Steve Huston
Subject: Re: New Defects reported by Coverity Scan for Apache-Qpid
As an aside, I notice that they seem to have enabled scanning of Java projects
as well as C++ now...
ng the
> model - or any way that I could find that would enable debugging of the
> model to find out what it was actually doing.
>
> -K
>
>
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Ken Giusti"
> > To: dev@qpid.apache.org
> > Cc: shus...@riverace.co
46:55 PM
> Subject: Re: New Defects reported by Coverity Scan for Apache-Qpid
>
> Ok - I'll give it a go, stay tuned.
>
> -K
>
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Steve Huston"
> > To: dev@qpid.apache.org
> > Sent: Monday, July 1, 2013
Ok - I'll give it a go, stay tuned.
-K
- Original Message -
> From: "Steve Huston"
> To: dev@qpid.apache.org
> Sent: Monday, July 1, 2013 2:32:14 PM
> Subject: RE: New Defects reported by Coverity Scan for Apache-Qpid
>
> Yes, there is a way - I ca
page on the coverity web site didn't seem to allow that.
>
>
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Steve Huston"
> > To: dev@qpid.apache.org
> > Sent: Monday, July 1, 2013 1:18:58 PM
> > Subject: RE: New Defects reported by Coverity Scan for Apa
That particular ScopedLock had a ScopedUnlock inside its scope. I
wonder if that is leading Coverity astray.
-Ted
On 07/01/2013 01:16 PM, Ken Giusti wrote:
Unless I'm missing something subtle, this appears to be a false positive.
Coverity marked a few uses of ScopedLock with this error, but
> To: dev@qpid.apache.org
> Sent: Monday, July 1, 2013 1:18:58 PM
> Subject: RE: New Defects reported by Coverity Scan for Apache-Qpid
>
> I agree, Ken. If anyone knows how to make Coverity stop this, please let me
> know. Else I'll check into it. I know there are a few wa
PM
> To: Qpid Dev
> Subject: Re: New Defects reported by Coverity Scan for Apache-Qpid
>
> Unless I'm missing something subtle, this appears to be a false positive.
>
> Coverity marked a few uses of ScopedLock with this error, but not all, which
> seems curious.
Unless I'm missing something subtle, this appears to be a false positive.
Coverity marked a few uses of ScopedLock with this error, but not all, which
seems curious.
-K
- Forwarded Message -
> From: scan-ad...@coverity.com
> To: dev@qpid.apache.org
> Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2013 5:39:43
24 matches
Mail list logo
