Marcus Meissner wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 09:12:55PM +0300, Alexander Dorofeyev wrote:
>> Dan Kegel wrote:
>>
Still a lot of NULL ptr migration issues which suck
to fix, but well.
>>> 709 DEADCODEDEVENUM_ReadPinTypesdevenum/createdevenum.c
>>> 717 FORWARD_NULL
On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 09:12:55PM +0300, Alexander Dorofeyev wrote:
> Dan Kegel wrote:
>
> >> Still a lot of NULL ptr migration issues which suck
> >> to fix, but well.
> > 709 DEADCODEDEVENUM_ReadPinTypesdevenum/createdevenum.c
> > 717 FORWARD_NULLDEVENUM_ReadPinTypes
alexd4 asked:
> is there more details available on what and where it detects in the
> function (free of charge)?
Yes. See
http://scan.coverity.com/devfaq.html#account
- Dan
Dan Kegel wrote:
>> Still a lot of NULL ptr migration issues which suck
>> to fix, but well.
> 709 DEADCODEDEVENUM_ReadPinTypesdevenum/createdevenum.c
> 717 FORWARD_NULLDEVENUM_ReadPinTypesdevenum/createdevenum.c
NULL-dereference may be a false positive from the way me
> Did you count the ones I listed not in test code? I probably should
> have separated them out...
No, I didn't. Now I understand the source of my confusion, thanks.
My account appears to be closed, so I hope you don't mind if I tell
you the status of the two new crypt32 reports:
725 NULL_R
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 8:51 AM, Juan Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> There are only 23 not in test code:
>
> am I confused by this statement? The following sure seem to be in
> test code, unless I misunderstand your meaning:
>> 726 OVERRUN_STATIC test_EnumGroupsInGroup dplayx/tests/dplayx
Hi Dan,
> There are only 23 not in test code:
am I confused by this statement? The following sure seem to be in
test code, unless I misunderstand your meaning:
> 726 OVERRUN_STATIC test_EnumGroupsInGroup dplayx/tests/dplayx.c
> 722 FORWARD_NULLtest_OpenRequestwinhttp/tests/
2008/9/9 Dan Kegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Marcus wrote:
>> A new Coverity run (274) was done finally, so
>> we can restart looking at issues ;)
>>
>> Still a lot of NULL ptr migration issues which suck
>> to fix, but well.
>
> Sure would be nice if Coverity could identify the cl which introduced
>
Marcus wrote:
> A new Coverity run (274) was done finally, so
> we can restart looking at issues ;)
>
> Still a lot of NULL ptr migration issues which suck
> to fix, but well.
Yay! Here are the new errors introduced since the end of May, sorted
by source file.
There are only 23 not in test code:
Hi folks,
A new Coverity run (274) was done finally, so
we can restart looking at issues ;)
Still a lot of NULL ptr migration issues which suck
to fix, but well.
Ciao, Marcus
10 matches
Mail list logo