This is the mail archive of the cygwin-developers mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On Apr 30 00:01, David Stacey wrote: > On 29/04/2015 19:13, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >On Apr 29 18:58, David Stacey wrote: > >>If there are no objections, I'd like to update our weekly Coverity scan to > >>use Coverity Analysis 7.6.0 (presently we're using 7.5.0). There should be > >>fewer false positives this week, but there might be some new coding defects > >>picked up also. > >No worries here. Just go ahead. > > Thanks. I'm running the analysis now using the same source code as last > week. So any differences we see in the analysis results will be down to > changes between Coverity Analysis 7.5.0 and 7.6.0. Results should be > available on the Coverity Scan website in a couple of hours. > > I'll take a look at any new warnings tomorrow evening. If you have time to > take a look during the day then please let me know the numeric ID of any > issues you fix (or mark them as 'fix submitted') so we don't duplicate > effort. Thanks. I had a quick look and CID 109854 is certainly a false positive because it counts wrongly in the wide character case: CHAR fmtbuf[10], *fmt = fmtbuf; It knows wchar_t is 2 bytes at this point. Three time ++ means, 14 bytes left. STRCPY (fmt, CQ(".*u")); At this point, Coverity looks at the expression L".*u" and counts 4 bytes per wide char in the string expression, which isn't true for us. The string takes 8 bytes only. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
Attachment:
pgpEJH5GnoPM1.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |