On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 10:47:25PM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
quoted text
> 
> On Feb 1 2008 03:21, Harvey Harrison wrote:
> >> 
> >> Question is: why do people keep adding new ones when they are so easy to
> >> detect and fix?
> >> 
> >> Asnwer: because neither they nor their patch integrators are doing adequate
> >> compilation testing.
> >
> >[...]
> >Unless they break the build, or if there currently are 0 and they make
> >it non-zero, people seem not to care....sad.  Probably the same for
> >sparse/checkpatch, "there's plenty already, I can't be bothered to look"
> 
> checkpatch does not parse C, it uses heuristical regexes.
> 
> That makes it very different from sparse or the section mismatch
> finder which do not output false positives.

Unfortunately I most correct you. Section mismatch checks seldoms finds
what I would call 'real' bugs that causes oops - but it happen.
It is mostly fasle positives that needs workaround, but also a great
deal of missing annotation resulting in additional memory saved.
And then occasionally a bad reference in some error handling that
seldom trigger but when it does it would oops.

	Sam
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/