Mike Kaplinskiy writes:
> As for the context note, it is perfectly valid code (segfault-less,
> that is) as it stands, but we should either remove the null check on
> the next line or assign the value later.
No, the code is fine as it is. The bug is in cppcheck.
--
Alexandre Julliard
julli...@
2009/9/13 Henri Verbeet :
> 2009/9/13 Mike Kaplinskiy :
>> Actually it does dereference something, if you think of dmFormName
>> being an int (not a pointer), then you would be subtracting an address
>> from a random value.
>
> If it were an int, sure, but "dmFormName" is a WCHAR array.
>
My point
2009/9/13 Mike Kaplinskiy :
> Actually it does dereference something, if you think of dmFormName
> being an int (not a pointer), then you would be subtracting an address
> from a random value.
If it were an int, sure, but "dmFormName" is a WCHAR array.
2009/9/13 Mike Kaplinskiy :
> But as Ben noted, the cleaner way would be to use FIELD_OFFSET, which
> does exactly the above.
As much as I'd love to take the credit for suggesting FIELD_OFFSET, it
was Henri :)
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 7:08 PM, Henri Verbeet wrote:
> 2009/9/13 Ben Klein :
>> 2009/9/13 Nicolas Le Cam :
>>> Last one is also a false positive, it's just two pointers being
>>> subtracted to retrieve an offset.
>>
>> That's not the reason why it's a false positive. Without context that
>> line
2009/9/13 Ben Klein :
> 2009/9/13 Nicolas Le Cam :
>> Last one is also a false positive, it's just two pointers being
>> subtracted to retrieve an offset.
>
> That's not the reason why it's a false positive. Without context that
> line does look like a NULL-dereference (dmW is dereferenced to get t
2009/9/13 Nicolas Le Cam :
> Last one is also a false positive, it's just two pointers being
> subtracted to retrieve an offset.
That's not the reason why it's a false positive. Without context that
line does look like a NULL-dereference (dmW is dereferenced to get the
first pointer before any NUL
2009/9/12 Mike Kaplinskiy :
> On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Mike Kaplinskiy
> wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 11:19 AM, Nicolas Le Cam
>> wrote:
>>> 2009/9/12 chris ahrendt :
Here is the run for Friday Sept. 11 with the tools and the tests
directory results removed.
>>>
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Mike Kaplinskiy
wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 11:19 AM, Nicolas Le Cam wrote:
>> 2009/9/12 chris ahrendt :
>>>
>>> Here is the run for Friday Sept. 11 with the tools and the tests
>>> directory results removed.
>>>
>>>
>>> [/home/cahrendt/wine-git/dlls/ntdll/s
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 11:19 AM, Nicolas Le Cam wrote:
> 2009/9/12 chris ahrendt :
>>
>> Here is the run for Friday Sept. 11 with the tools and the tests
>> directory results removed.
>>
>>
>> [/home/cahrendt/wine-git/dlls/ntdll/server.c:802]: (error) Resource leak: fd
>> [/home/cahrendt/wine-git
2009/9/12 chris ahrendt :
>
> Here is the run for Friday Sept. 11 with the tools and the tests
> directory results removed.
>
>
> [/home/cahrendt/wine-git/dlls/ntdll/server.c:802]: (error) Resource leak: fd
> [/home/cahrendt/wine-git/dlls/ntdll/server.c:882]: (error) Resource
> leak: fd_cwd
> [/hom
Here is the run for Friday Sept. 11 with the tools and the tests
directory results removed.
[/home/cahrendt/wine-git/dlls/ntdll/server.c:802]: (error) Resource leak: fd
[/home/cahrendt/wine-git/dlls/ntdll/server.c:882]: (error) Resource
leak: fd_cwd
[/home/cahrendt/wine-git/dlls/wineps.drv/ini
12 matches
Mail list logo
