On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Stephen Fisher
<steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, May 01, 2010 at 10:57:51PM +0300, Kaul wrote:
> I've ran clang static analyser on SVN latest and got the following:
> Obviously, there's little chance I can fix all of them. I can try fix
> a few from the dissectors I'm familiar with, though.
Every little bit of assistance helps! What OS are you running clang on?
I'm using Red Hat Fedora 12.
I started to compile Wireshark on MacOS 10.6 once I saw your message the
other day and ran into a few problems it noticed that gcc doesn't seem
to care about. The main one was what I termed backwards overflow ;).
These were cases where a negative number was assigned to an unsigned
32-bit integers that makes gcc go to zero then to 2^32 and then down the
right number. A hex number represents it easily in text, but the 4.2
million or so is hard to follow.
Please open a bug report at https://bugs.wireshark.org with just some of
the details on what you found - you don't have to list everything of
course. It sounds like it would be best tackled by others using clang
also I would think.
Oy Vey! I've just built clang from SVN and now it finds 3354 bugs. Regretfully, its report is not file based - it just shows them one after another, not sorted by file.
I'm not even sure how to open a bug on so many files, and it would be quite difficult go through each file and report the bug. The report ( 6 HTMLs, uncompressed) is 1.8MB - should I perhaps zip and file a single bug?
I'm almost done with the fixes to packet-ssl.c, but there are so many others...
Y.
Thanks!
--
Steve
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe