https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6878
--- Comment #15 from Gerald Combs <gerald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2012-04-05 17:32:48 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> I could be wrong (heck, I was wrong in believing Coverity that these were valid
> complaints), but my guess is that Coverity won't be appeased by this change,
> just judging by the wording of their details about the bug, namely,
> "index_parm_in_call: Called function indexes parameter." and "index_parm:
> Directly indexing parameter."
>
> If the relevant CIDs don't vanish, I think it would still be nice to somehow
> pacify Coverity though (perhaps by the "%8" as Mike suggested in comment 12).
> The OVERRUN_STATIC checker type is one of those types that has unveiled real
> bugs in the past, but with all these false positives, it will be more difficult
> to spot the real ones in the noise of these false ones.
You're correct - Coverity wasn't appeased by my change. I added "%8" in r41968.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are watching all bug changes.
