From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECFCB9B1 for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 17:51:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from sipsolutions.net (s3.sipsolutions.net [5.9.151.49]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CDCB92034F for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 17:51:48 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1399656674.4136.12.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> From: Johannes Berg To: josh@joshtriplett.org Date: Fri, 09 May 2014 19:31:14 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20140509171954.GC8289@cloud> References: <20140509170709.GA9747@redhat.com> <20140509171954.GC8289@cloud> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] coverity, static checking etc. List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, 2014-05-09 at 10:19 -0700, josh@joshtriplett.org wrote: > I'd like to see this topic as well. I think we could do a lot better > here than we do. And don't forget that GCC is one of our top static > analysis tools, if only because it's the only one *everyone* runs; that > includes both warnings and the possibility of shipping and building our > own GCC plugin. > > I'd also like to nominate Christopher Li, for Sparse. Seconded, I'm also interested in general in whether people still think sparse is useful and we should give it attention, or should focus more on really getting everything into gcc - we have a number of sparse warnings in very low-level header files that get used everywhere, for example the one I just fixed in [1] or the one I tried to fix but that ended up being buggy ([2]), but there doesn't seem to be much attention to these during the patch submission etc. johannes [1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1699192 [2] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1642101/focus=1642108