Re: Coverity Open Source Defect Scan of PostgreSQL
От | Marc G. Fournier |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Coverity Open Source Defect Scan of PostgreSQL |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20060309161835.A1178@ganymede.hub.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Coverity Open Source Defect Scan of PostgreSQL (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Coverity Open Source Defect Scan of PostgreSQL
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > -- Start of PGP signed section. >> On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 06:42:45PM -0500, Greg Stark wrote: >>> Ben Chelf <ben@coverity.com> writes: >>> >>>>>>> #ifdef STATIC_ANALYSIS >>>>>>> #define ereport(elevel, rest) \ >>>>>>> (errstart(elevel, __FILE__, __LINE__, PG_FUNCNAME_MACRO) ? \ >>>>>>> (errfinish rest) : (void) 0), (elevel >= ERROR ? exit(0) : 0) >>>>>>> #else >>>>>>> /* Normal def */ >>>>>>> #endif >>>> >>>> As for Coverity, if the elevel that's passed to the ereport is really a >>>> constant, the above #ifdef should absolutely do the trick for us so we know to >>>> stop analyzing on that path...Let me know if it doesn't actually do that ;) >>> >>> If you're willing to require elevel to always be a constant then why not just >>> tack on the (elevel >= ERROR ? exit(0) : 0) onto the end of the regular >>> definition of ereport instead of having an ifdef? >> >> Well, the only cost would be a useless call to exit() for each >> elog/ereport with an elevel >= ERROR. It bloats the binary a bit. Not >> sure whether people care enough about that. > > We care. :-) Why? I don't think we are able to run 'embedded' now as it is, so its not like we're dealign with system with small disk spaces :) how much bigger would adding that exit() make the binary? Martijn, could you do a build with/without it and compare sizes? ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: