From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1085 invoked by alias); 29 Jun 2007 11:37:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 1075 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Jun 2007 11:37:39 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 29 Jun 2007 11:37:35 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C858C982A3; Fri, 29 Jun 2007 11:37:33 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A64A5982A2; Fri, 29 Jun 2007 11:37:33 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1I4Emd-0003cI-9B; Fri, 29 Jun 2007 07:37:03 -0400 Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 16:17:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: msnyder@sonic.net Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [OB] pointer ref, m2-typeprint.c Message-ID: <20070629113703.GB13561@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: msnyder@sonic.net, gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <5515.12.7.175.2.1183077423.squirrel@webmail.sonic.net> <20070629004328.GA18113@caradoc.them.org> <9780.12.7.175.2.1183078961.squirrel@webmail.sonic.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9780.12.7.175.2.1183078961.squirrel@webmail.sonic.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-09) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-06/txt/msg00526.txt.bz2 On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 06:02:41PM -0700, msnyder@sonic.net wrote: > > If the second line I quoted could crash, the first > > line definitely will; so if TYPE can really be NULL here, we should > > fix it properly (instead of this change, which removes the helpful > > notice that something is wrong :-). > > Nooooo... I don't think my change removes any notice. > Take another look, please? Sorry, I meant a notice from Coverity's tools. The problem is that it knows TYPE_CODE is a dereference (that's a locally derivable conclusion within this file) but as far as I can tell it doesn't know that CHECK_TYPEDEF will always dereference its argument (it will). So now it's not going to complain, but if there was a problem, there still is. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery