Re: Microsoft vs. clang static analysis

[Gerald Combs <gerald () wireshark org>]

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