[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
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.
