Wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Microsoft vs. clang static analysis
From: Gerald Combs <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 16:49:48 -0800
On 2/17/11 3:52 PM, Guy Harris wrote:
> 
> On Feb 17, 2011, at 3:36 PM, Stephen Fisher wrote:
> 
>> Now that we're doing static analysis compilation with both Microsoft 
>> Visual C++ and clang, I see a lot of effort going into working around 
>> shortcomings in the Microsoft static analysis.
> 
> The only real shortcomings I see here are the mishandling of pointer checks in short-circuit Boolean operations and, if it's not just a consequence of the previous bug, the warnings generated by code in Microsoft headers.

I disabled warning C6011 (dereferencing NULL pointer) for now under the
assumption that Clang will give us more usable output without missing
NPE instances that Visual C++ would catch. Interestingly enough, that's
the warning shown in the example at

  http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-US/library/zyhb0b82.aspx

Maybe that's supposed to be a hint.

-- 
Join us for Sharkfest ’11! · Wireshark® Developer and User Conference
Stanford University, June 13-16 · http://sharkfest.wireshark.org