[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [libvirt] with these, clang vs. libvirt reports no errors



Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 06:02:29PM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
>> I've been running clang regularly, and there have been a few
>> pesky false-positives that just won't go away.
>> It's not productive to reexamine them each time, so I've wanted
>> a way to educate clang without polluting the code with work-arounds
>> that we'll be stuck maintaining and asking questions about long
>> after clang becomes smart enough that those work-arounds are no
>> longer required.
>>
>> My solution is to mark the work-arounds with a new macro, sa_assert
>> (for "static analysis assert"), which acts just like the classical
>> "assert", but is only enabled when compiled by a static analyzer
>> like clang or coverity.  The advantage of using an assert-like
>> macro is that people already know that it must have no side-effects
>> and that will make it easy to remove later, when clang grows up.
>>
>> One question you may ask is why add a new symbol, when
>> "assert" itself can already do this via NDEBUG (defined, any
>> assertions are disabled, not defined, they are enabled).
>> There are a few assertions in the code now, and I prefer
>> not to touch them, and to make it clear that these are
>> helping us cater to static analyzers.
>
> This sounds like a good compromise solution to me

Thanks.  Adjusted per comments and pushed.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]