Wireshark mailing list archives
Re: Microsoft vs. clang static analysis
From: Gerald Combs <gerald () wireshark org>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 16:49:48 -0800
On 2/17/11 3:52 PM, Guy Harris wrote:
On Feb 17, 2011, at 3:36 PM, Stephen Fisher wrote:Now that we're doing static analysis compilation with both Microsoft Visual C++ and clang, I see a lot of effort going into working around shortcomings in the Microsoft static analysis.The only real shortcomings I see here are the mishandling of pointer checks in short-circuit Boolean operations and, if it's not just a consequence of the previous bug, the warnings generated by code in Microsoft headers.
I disabled warning C6011 (dereferencing NULL pointer) for now under the assumption that Clang will give us more usable output without missing NPE instances that Visual C++ would catch. Interestingly enough, that's the warning shown in the example at http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-US/library/zyhb0b82.aspx Maybe that's supposed to be a hint. -- Join us for Sharkfest ’11! · Wireshark® Developer and User Conference Stanford University, June 13-16 · http://sharkfest.wireshark.org ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe
Current thread:
- Microsoft vs. clang static analysis Stephen Fisher (Feb 17)
- Re: Microsoft vs. clang static analysis Guy Harris (Feb 17)
- Re: Microsoft vs. clang static analysis Gerald Combs (Feb 17)
- Re: Microsoft vs. clang static analysis Guy Harris (Feb 17)
- Re: Microsoft vs. clang static analysis Guy Harris (Feb 17)