Wireshark mailing list archives
Re: lemon
From: Anders Broman <anders.broman () ericsson com>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 13:33:29 +0000
-----Original Message----- From: Wireshark-dev [mailto:wireshark-dev-bounces () wireshark org] On Behalf Of Guy Harris Sent: den 10 mars 2018 23:29 To: Developer support list for Wireshark <wireshark-dev () wireshark org> Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] lemon On Mar 10, 2018, at 1:04 PM, Dario Lombardo <dario.lombardo.ml () gmail com> wrote:
I'm working to reduce the number of warnings coming from clang code analyzer. The tool lemon (from project sqlite, if I'm not mistaken) is full of warnings, and (if I recall correctly) we had some issues pushing patches upstream. I can see two roads we can take to reduce this high amount of warnings: 1) patch our copy of lemon, without pushing upstream 2) suppress clang's analysis for this file. Which one is more desirable?We're already not identical to upstream, as far as I know, with our own changes; I'd vote for 1).
As it seems to be a false positive from the scan build, I think 2) is the better option in this case. Regards Anders ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe