Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 14:30:23 -0800 From: Khem Raj <raj.khem@...il.com> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Clang static analyser results > On Mar 3, 2016, at 11:21 AM, Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 10:56:33PM -0800, Khem Raj wrote: >> >>> On Mar 2, 2016, at 10:32 PM, Khem Raj <raj.khem@...il.com> wrote: >>> >>> All, >>> >>> I ran clang static analyser on tip of git today for x86_64 build. The results are here > > Thanks! > >>> https://busybox.net/~kraj/scan-build-2016-03-02-222206-32091-1/ >> >> and >> >> https://busybox.net/~kraj/scan-build-2016-03-02-225259-30448-1/ >> >> is arm cross built with clang as CC > > Any idea why the results are different for arm? Most of the code where > things are reported does not differ by arch. ARM is cross compiled using clang itself while x86_64 was using native gcc. another difference is that arm was using clang 3.8 for static analysis while x86_64 was using clang 3.7 > > I think everything reported has been investigated before and found to > be false positives. Do any of them look new/interesting? I did not look into details myself yet, its good to know that nothing new is found we want to keep it that way Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (205 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.