Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev
2021-Jun-10 17:41 UTC
[llvm-dev] Coverity Scan Needs to be Updated after GitHub Migration
On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 10:20 AM David Blaikie via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> Do the reports have deltas? (highlighting new defects with as fine > revision granularity as possible) or do they only show the total set of > findings at a given revision? >Yes (see below sample email from today), which is why I'd prefer to keep this daily rather than weekly. llvm-commits@ may be more suitable than llvm-dev@ for this?>From Coverity:Please find the latest report on new defect(s) introduced to llvm found with Coverity Scan. 8 new defect(s) introduced to llvm found with Coverity Scan. 19 defect(s), reported by Coverity Scan earlier, were marked fixed in the recent build analyzed by Coverity Scan. New defect(s) Reported-by: Coverity Scan Showing 8 of 8 defect(s) ** CID 1457502: Uninitialized members (UNINIT_CTOR) /lld/MachO/InputSection.h: 109 in lld::macho::StringPiece::StringPiece(unsigned long, unsigned int)() ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *** CID 1457502: Uninitialized members (UNINIT_CTOR) /lld/MachO/InputSection.h: 109 in lld::macho::StringPiece::StringPiece(unsigned long, unsigned int)() 103 // Offset from the start of the containing input section. 104 uint32_t inSecOff; 105 uint32_t hash; 106 // Offset from the start of the containing output section. 107 uint64_t outSecOff; 108>>> CID 1457502: Uninitialized members (UNINIT_CTOR) >>> Non-static class member "outSecOff" is not initialized in thisconstructor nor in any functions that it calls. 109 StringPiece(uint64_t off, uint32_t hash) : inSecOff(off), hash(hash) {} 110 }; 111 112 // CStringInputSections are composed of multiple null-terminated string 113 // literals, which we represent using StringPieces. These literals can be 114 // deduplicated and tail-merged, so translating offsets between the input and ** CID 1457501: Uninitialized members (UNINIT_CTOR) /llvm/lib/ObjectYAML/XCOFFEmitter.cpp: 36 in <unnamed>::XCOFFWriter::XCOFFWriter(llvm::XCOFFYAML::Object &, llvm::raw_ostream &, llvm::function_ref<void (const llvm::Twine &)>)() ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *** CID 1457501: Uninitialized members (UNINIT_CTOR) /llvm/lib/ObjectYAML/XCOFFEmitter.cpp: 36 in <unnamed>::XCOFFWriter::XCOFFWriter(llvm::XCOFFYAML::Object &, llvm::raw_ostream &, llvm::function_ref<void (const llvm::Twine &)>)() 30 31 class XCOFFWriter { 32 public: 33 XCOFFWriter(XCOFFYAML::Object &Obj, raw_ostream &OS, yaml::ErrorHandler EH) 34 : Obj(Obj), W(OS, support::big), ErrHandler(EH) { 35 Is64Bit = Obj.Header.Magic == (llvm::yaml::Hex16)XCOFF::XCOFF64;>>> CID 1457501: Uninitialized members (UNINIT_CTOR) >>> Non-static class member "StartOffset" is not initialized in thisconstructor nor in any functions that it calls. 36 } 37 bool writeXCOFF(); 38 39 private: 40 bool initFileHeader(uint64_t CurrentOffset); 41 bool initSectionHeader(uint64_t &CurrentOffset); ** CID 1457500: Incorrect expression (SIZEOF_MISMATCH) /compiler-rt/lib/dfsan/dfsan_custom.cpp: 2367 in format_buffer(char *, unsigned long, const char *, unsigned char *, unsigned char *, unsigned int *, unsigned int *, __va_list_tag *)() ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *** CID 1457500: Incorrect expression (SIZEOF_MISMATCH) /compiler-rt/lib/dfsan/dfsan_custom.cpp: 2367 in format_buffer(char *, unsigned long, const char *, unsigned char *, unsigned char *, unsigned int *, unsigned int *, __va_list_tag *)() 2361 case 'n': { 2362 int *ptr = va_arg(ap, int *); 2363 *ptr = (int)formatter.str_off; 2364 va_labels++; 2365 if (va_origins) 2366 va_origins++;>>> CID 1457500: Incorrect expression (SIZEOF_MISMATCH) >>> Passing argument "ptr" of type "int *" and argument "8UL /* sizeof(ptr) */" to function "dfsan_set_label" is suspicious. 2367 dfsan_set_label(0, ptr, sizeof(ptr)); 2368 end_fmt = true; 2369 break; 2370 } 2371 2372 case '%': ** CID 1457499: Incorrect expression (DIVIDE_BY_ZERO) /llvm/lib/Analysis/CFGPrinter.cpp: 308 in llvm::DOTGraphTraits<llvm::DOTFuncInfo *>::isNodeHidden(const llvm::BasicBlock *, const llvm::DOTFuncInfo *)() ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *** CID 1457499: Incorrect expression (DIVIDE_BY_ZERO) /llvm/lib/Analysis/CFGPrinter.cpp: 308 in llvm::DOTGraphTraits<llvm::DOTFuncInfo *>::isNodeHidden(const llvm::BasicBlock *, const llvm::DOTFuncInfo *)() 302 const DOTFuncInfo *CFGInfo) { 303 if (HideColdPaths.getNumOccurrences() > 0) 304 if (auto *BFI = CFGInfo->getBFI()) { 305 uint64_t NodeFreq = BFI->getBlockFreq(Node).getFrequency(); 306 uint64_t EntryFreq = BFI->getEntryFreq(); 307 // Hide blocks with relative frequency below HideColdPaths threshold.>>> CID 1457499: Incorrect expression (DIVIDE_BY_ZERO) >>> In expression "(double)NodeFreq / EntryFreq", division byexpression "EntryFreq" which may be zero has undefined behavior. 308 if ((double)NodeFreq / EntryFreq < HideColdPaths) 309 return true; 310 } 311 if (HideUnreachablePaths || HideDeoptimizePaths) { 312 if (isOnDeoptOrUnreachablePath.find(Node) =313 isOnDeoptOrUnreachablePath.end()) ** CID 1457498: (DEADCODE) /clang/lib/Sema/SemaDeclCXX.cpp: 11843 in clang::Sema::CheckUsingShadowDecl(clang::BaseUsingDecl *, clang::NamedDecl *, const clang::LookupResult &, clang::UsingShadowDecl *&)() /clang/lib/Sema/SemaDeclCXX.cpp: 11789 in clang::Sema::CheckUsingShadowDecl(clang::BaseUsingDecl *, clang::NamedDecl *, const clang::LookupResult &, clang::UsingShadowDecl *&)() ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *** CID 1457498: (DEADCODE) /clang/lib/Sema/SemaDeclCXX.cpp: 11843 in clang::Sema::CheckUsingShadowDecl(clang::BaseUsingDecl *, clang::NamedDecl *, const clang::LookupResult &, clang::UsingShadowDecl *&)() 11837 return true; 11838 } 11839 11840 // No conflict between a tag and a non-tag. 11841 if (!NonTag) return false; 11842>>> CID 1457498: (DEADCODE) >>> Execution cannot reach this statement: "<temporary> this->Diag(cl...".11843 Diag(BUD->getLocation(), diag::err_using_decl_conflict); 11844 Diag(Target->getLocation(), diag::note_using_decl_target); 11845 Diag(NonTag->getLocation(), diag::note_using_decl_conflict); 11846 BUD->setInvalidDecl(); 11847 return true; 11848 } /clang/lib/Sema/SemaDeclCXX.cpp: 11789 in clang::Sema::CheckUsingShadowDecl(clang::BaseUsingDecl *, clang::NamedDecl *, const clang::LookupResult &, clang::UsingShadowDecl *&)() 11783 // Always emit a diagnostic for a mismatch between an unresolved 11784 // using_if_exists and a resolved using declaration in either direction. 11785 if (isa<UnresolvedUsingIfExistsDecl>(Target) !11786 (isa_and_nonnull<UnresolvedUsingIfExistsDecl>(NonTag))) { 11787 if (!NonTag && !Tag) 11788 return false;>>> CID 1457498: (DEADCODE) >>> Execution cannot reach this statement: "<temporary> this->Diag(cl...".11789 Diag(BUD->getLocation(), diag::err_using_decl_conflict); 11790 Diag(Target->getLocation(), diag::note_using_decl_target); 11791 Diag((NonTag ? NonTag : Tag)->getLocation(), 11792 diag::note_using_decl_conflict); 11793 BUD->setInvalidDecl(); 11794 return true; ** CID 1457497: Integer handling issues (NEGATIVE_RETURNS) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *** CID 1457497: Integer handling issues (NEGATIVE_RETURNS) /lld/MachO/InputSection.cpp: 117 in lld::macho::CStringInputSection::getStringPiece(unsigned long) const() 111 const StringPiece &CStringInputSection::getStringPiece(uint64_t off) const { 112 if (off >= data.size()) 113 fatal(toString(this) + ": offset is outside the section"); 114 115 auto it 116 partition_point(pieces, [=](StringPiece p) { return p.inSecOff <= off; });>>> CID 1457497: Integer handling issues (NEGATIVE_RETURNS) >>> A negative constant "-1L" is passed as an argument to a parameterthat cannot be negative. 117 return it[-1]; 118 } 119 120 uint64_t CStringInputSection::getFileOffset(uint64_t off) const { 121 return parent->fileOff + getOffset(off); 122 } ** CID 1457496: Possible Control flow issues (DEADCODE) /clang/lib/Sema/SemaDeclCXX.cpp: 11833 in clang::Sema::CheckUsingShadowDecl(clang::BaseUsingDecl *, clang::NamedDecl *, const clang::LookupResult &, clang::UsingShadowDecl *&)() ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *** CID 1457496: Possible Control flow issues (DEADCODE) /clang/lib/Sema/SemaDeclCXX.cpp: 11833 in clang::Sema::CheckUsingShadowDecl(clang::BaseUsingDecl *, clang::NamedDecl *, const clang::LookupResult &, clang::UsingShadowDecl *&)() 11827 // Target is not a function. 11828 11829 if (isa<TagDecl>(Target)) { 11830 // No conflict between a tag and a non-tag. 11831 if (!Tag) return false; 11832>>> CID 1457496: Possible Control flow issues (DEADCODE) >>> Execution cannot reach this statement: "<temporary> this->Diag(cl...".11833 Diag(BUD->getLocation(), diag::err_using_decl_conflict); 11834 Diag(Target->getLocation(), diag::note_using_decl_target); 11835 Diag(Tag->getLocation(), diag::note_using_decl_conflict); 11836 BUD->setInvalidDecl(); 11837 return true; 11838 } ** CID 1419078: Resource leaks (VIRTUAL_DTOR) /llvm/lib/Transforms/Instrumentation/PGOInstrumentation.cpp: 541 in () ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *** CID 1419078: Resource leaks (VIRTUAL_DTOR) /llvm/lib/Transforms/Instrumentation/PGOInstrumentation.cpp: 541 in () 535 return (Twine(Removed ? "-" : " ") + (InMST ? " " : "*") + 536 (IsCritical ? "c" : " ") + " W=" + Twine(Weight)).str(); 537 } 538 }; 539 540 // This class stores the auxiliary information for each BB.>>> CID 1419078: Resource leaks (VIRTUAL_DTOR) >>> Class "<unnamed>::BBInfo" does not have a virtual destructor.541 struct BBInfo { 542 BBInfo *Group; 543 uint32_t Index; 544 uint32_t Rank = 0; 545 546 BBInfo(unsigned IX) : Group(this), Index(IX) {} ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ To view the defects in Coverity Scan visit, https://u15810271.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=HRESupC-2F2Czv4BOaCWWCy7my0P0qcxCbhZ31OYv50yqtGMuad6pPsL7inW23sAqZCWZD0rQ5FZsyk18zSjnBpg-3D-3Dqen7_nlj59xHPRAo5NMSpMZh-2B1UYnQ4IBJNE2FCxtFGv5-2FfRZ2ZNTfin-2BJg3vqHM-2BrKWO-2BwAgQVf1GGFXh4xVX9UzXjq3jPiI59xzjIzanRxv0XSIVZFqDyJd-2BdQm4cXqcdS7Dt0L1fNQpWyw15e-2BbU4YMt1YpKZVa4kbM7Bjl6hGDatG6tnUuz5zUAdmlq-2B7z2QmYSc2DTghseWofWoq-2Bn7ssA-3D-3D To manage Coverity Scan email notifications for "joker.eph at gmail.com", click https://u15810271.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=HRESupC-2F2Czv4BOaCWWCy7my0P0qcxCbhZ31OYv50yped04pjJnmXOsUBtKYNIXxUrjVeIJ0Cfeziujhnhh3yxzc7w9MgExjQKEssnVrR9tYRoPYlaXXfdUjwRQLJCdFixsrT7mUhUA9ixc9DPUdquU2MMNgdrF247xaBicB0V4-3Dht-M_nlj59xHPRAo5NMSpMZh-2B1UYnQ4IBJNE2FCxtFGv5-2FfRZ2ZNTfin-2BJg3vqHM-2BrKWOP6G0-2FiydipnYxIKl-2Bk7AFFr9CcUjQXx7tq4qtWbpBdzz7-2Bib4DWeMAf-2Bv0hl9c0qiwYnDVi4C3uD0F0P9wRuATKCNq-2FJGcnjmQ51zJUZdom9QcwJ2QwYMBBjOk8G2ylW4oH3PujCpojyn5dsLN7qdQ-3D-3D> > On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 7:37 AM Luke Benes via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> > https://scan.coverity.com/projects/llvm >> > Should run once a day. >> >> Sylvester, >> The report seems to be working perfectly. Thank you for taking the time >> to get this up and running again! >> >> My only concern is that there is no visibly on these reports. Without the >> new issues being reported here, it is highly unlikely that they will get >> addressed. >> >> Since there was interest and no objections, could you please add the >> [llvm-dev] list to the email? >> >> You can do this by going to the "Project Settings" page: >> https://scan.coverity.com/projects/llvm?tab=project_settings >> >> "Additional Emails for New Defect Notifications" >> -> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >> >> Then could you please lower the report frequency to once or twice a week? >> With that we will receive weekly reports like this: >> >> >> http://document-foundation-mail-archive.969070.n3.nabble.com/New-Defects-reported-by-Coverity-Scan-for-LibreOffice-td4301203.html >> >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >> > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20210610/863f613d/attachment.html>
David Blaikie via llvm-dev
2021-Jun-10 18:54 UTC
[llvm-dev] Coverity Scan Needs to be Updated after GitHub Migration
On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 10:42 AM Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote:> > > > On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 10:20 AM David Blaikie via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Do the reports have deltas? (highlighting new defects with as fine >> revision granularity as possible) or do they only show the total set of >> findings at a given revision? >> > > Yes (see below sample email from today), which is why I'd prefer to keep > this daily rather than weekly. >Ah, cool - thanks!> llvm-commits@ may be more suitable than llvm-dev@ for this? >Yeah, not sure. I don't feel too strongly either way.> > > From Coverity: > > Please find the latest report on new defect(s) introduced to llvm found > with Coverity Scan. > > 8 new defect(s) introduced to llvm found with Coverity Scan. > 19 defect(s), reported by Coverity Scan earlier, were marked fixed in the > recent build analyzed by Coverity Scan. > > New defect(s) Reported-by: Coverity Scan > Showing 8 of 8 defect(s) > > > ** CID 1457502: Uninitialized members (UNINIT_CTOR) > /lld/MachO/InputSection.h: 109 in > lld::macho::StringPiece::StringPiece(unsigned long, unsigned int)() >Is it easy for us to disable low-value findings (both on a per-instance, but also per-check-tye) basis in source (ie: without having to modify an external config)? For instance, I'm not sure it's valuable for us to get notification on any member not initialized by a ctor. That could readily be detected by clang-tidy or clang warnings and we don't implement such checks in those places (which would be higher value because they can find the issue sooner rather than waiting for a long-running static analysis to come back with results). Keeping the warnings low-noise would be really important (so whoever set this up or requested it I hope is really pushing to reduce the noise until nearly all results have pretty broad agreement that they should be fixed).> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > *** CID 1457502: Uninitialized members (UNINIT_CTOR) > /lld/MachO/InputSection.h: 109 in > lld::macho::StringPiece::StringPiece(unsigned long, unsigned int)() > 103 // Offset from the start of the containing input section. > 104 uint32_t inSecOff; > 105 uint32_t hash; > 106 // Offset from the start of the containing output section. > 107 uint64_t outSecOff; > 108 > >>> CID 1457502: Uninitialized members (UNINIT_CTOR) > >>> Non-static class member "outSecOff" is not initialized in this > constructor nor in any functions that it calls. > 109 StringPiece(uint64_t off, uint32_t hash) : inSecOff(off), > hash(hash) {} > 110 }; > 111 > 112 // CStringInputSections are composed of multiple null-terminated > string > 113 // literals, which we represent using StringPieces. These literals > can be > 114 // deduplicated and tail-merged, so translating offsets between > the input and > > ** CID 1457501: Uninitialized members (UNINIT_CTOR) > /llvm/lib/ObjectYAML/XCOFFEmitter.cpp: 36 in > <unnamed>::XCOFFWriter::XCOFFWriter(llvm::XCOFFYAML::Object &, > llvm::raw_ostream &, llvm::function_ref<void (const llvm::Twine &)>)() > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > *** CID 1457501: Uninitialized members (UNINIT_CTOR) > /llvm/lib/ObjectYAML/XCOFFEmitter.cpp: 36 in > <unnamed>::XCOFFWriter::XCOFFWriter(llvm::XCOFFYAML::Object &, > llvm::raw_ostream &, llvm::function_ref<void (const llvm::Twine &)>)() > 30 > 31 class XCOFFWriter { > 32 public: > 33 XCOFFWriter(XCOFFYAML::Object &Obj, raw_ostream &OS, > yaml::ErrorHandler EH) > 34 : Obj(Obj), W(OS, support::big), ErrHandler(EH) { > 35 Is64Bit = Obj.Header.Magic == (llvm::yaml::Hex16)XCOFF::XCOFF64; > >>> CID 1457501: Uninitialized members (UNINIT_CTOR) > >>> Non-static class member "StartOffset" is not initialized in this > constructor nor in any functions that it calls. > 36 } > 37 bool writeXCOFF(); > 38 > 39 private: > 40 bool initFileHeader(uint64_t CurrentOffset); > 41 bool initSectionHeader(uint64_t &CurrentOffset); > > ** CID 1457500: Incorrect expression (SIZEOF_MISMATCH) > /compiler-rt/lib/dfsan/dfsan_custom.cpp: 2367 in format_buffer(char *, > unsigned long, const char *, unsigned char *, unsigned char *, unsigned int > *, unsigned int *, __va_list_tag *)() > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > *** CID 1457500: Incorrect expression (SIZEOF_MISMATCH) > /compiler-rt/lib/dfsan/dfsan_custom.cpp: 2367 in format_buffer(char *, > unsigned long, const char *, unsigned char *, unsigned char *, unsigned int > *, unsigned int *, __va_list_tag *)() > 2361 case 'n': { > 2362 int *ptr = va_arg(ap, int *); > 2363 *ptr = (int)formatter.str_off; > 2364 va_labels++; > 2365 if (va_origins) > 2366 va_origins++; > >>> CID 1457500: Incorrect expression (SIZEOF_MISMATCH) > >>> Passing argument "ptr" of type "int *" and argument "8UL /* sizeof > (ptr) */" to function "dfsan_set_label" is suspicious. > 2367 dfsan_set_label(0, ptr, sizeof(ptr)); >I think clang has a sizeof warning for things like memcpy, right? I wonder if this more broad warning provides a lot of value, or not?> 2368 end_fmt = true; > 2369 break; > 2370 } > 2371 > 2372 case '%': > > ** CID 1457499: Incorrect expression (DIVIDE_BY_ZERO) > /llvm/lib/Analysis/CFGPrinter.cpp: 308 in > llvm::DOTGraphTraits<llvm::DOTFuncInfo *>::isNodeHidden(const > llvm::BasicBlock *, const llvm::DOTFuncInfo *)() > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > *** CID 1457499: Incorrect expression (DIVIDE_BY_ZERO) > /llvm/lib/Analysis/CFGPrinter.cpp: 308 in > llvm::DOTGraphTraits<llvm::DOTFuncInfo *>::isNodeHidden(const > llvm::BasicBlock *, const llvm::DOTFuncInfo *)() > 302 const DOTFuncInfo > *CFGInfo) { > 303 if (HideColdPaths.getNumOccurrences() > 0) > 304 if (auto *BFI = CFGInfo->getBFI()) { > 305 uint64_t NodeFreq = BFI->getBlockFreq(Node).getFrequency(); > 306 uint64_t EntryFreq = BFI->getEntryFreq(); > 307 // Hide blocks with relative frequency below HideColdPaths > threshold. > >>> CID 1457499: Incorrect expression (DIVIDE_BY_ZERO) > >>> In expression "(double)NodeFreq / EntryFreq", division by > expression "EntryFreq" which may be zero has undefined behavior. > 308 if ((double)NodeFreq / EntryFreq < HideColdPaths) > 309 return true; > 310 } > 311 if (HideUnreachablePaths || HideDeoptimizePaths) { > 312 if (isOnDeoptOrUnreachablePath.find(Node) => 313 isOnDeoptOrUnreachablePath.end()) > > ** CID 1457498: (DEADCODE) > /clang/lib/Sema/SemaDeclCXX.cpp: 11843 in > clang::Sema::CheckUsingShadowDecl(clang::BaseUsingDecl *, clang::NamedDecl > *, const clang::LookupResult &, clang::UsingShadowDecl *&)() > /clang/lib/Sema/SemaDeclCXX.cpp: 11789 in > clang::Sema::CheckUsingShadowDecl(clang::BaseUsingDecl *, clang::NamedDecl > *, const clang::LookupResult &, clang::UsingShadowDecl *&)() > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > *** CID 1457498: (DEADCODE) > /clang/lib/Sema/SemaDeclCXX.cpp: 11843 in > clang::Sema::CheckUsingShadowDecl(clang::BaseUsingDecl *, clang::NamedDecl > *, const clang::LookupResult &, clang::UsingShadowDecl *&)() > 11837 return true; > 11838 } > 11839 > 11840 // No conflict between a tag and a non-tag. > 11841 if (!NonTag) return false; > 11842 > >>> CID 1457498: (DEADCODE) > >>> Execution cannot reach this statement: "<temporary> > this->Diag(cl...". > 11843 Diag(BUD->getLocation(), diag::err_using_decl_conflict); > 11844 Diag(Target->getLocation(), diag::note_using_decl_target); > 11845 Diag(NonTag->getLocation(), diag::note_using_decl_conflict); > 11846 BUD->setInvalidDecl(); > 11847 return true; > 11848 } > /clang/lib/Sema/SemaDeclCXX.cpp: 11789 in > clang::Sema::CheckUsingShadowDecl(clang::BaseUsingDecl *, clang::NamedDecl > *, const clang::LookupResult &, clang::UsingShadowDecl *&)() > 11783 // Always emit a diagnostic for a mismatch between an > unresolved > 11784 // using_if_exists and a resolved using declaration in either > direction. > 11785 if (isa<UnresolvedUsingIfExistsDecl>(Target) !> 11786 (isa_and_nonnull<UnresolvedUsingIfExistsDecl>(NonTag))) { > 11787 if (!NonTag && !Tag) > 11788 return false; > >>> CID 1457498: (DEADCODE) > >>> Execution cannot reach this statement: "<temporary> > this->Diag(cl...". > 11789 Diag(BUD->getLocation(), diag::err_using_decl_conflict); > 11790 Diag(Target->getLocation(), diag::note_using_decl_target); > 11791 Diag((NonTag ? NonTag : Tag)->getLocation(), > 11792 diag::note_using_decl_conflict); > 11793 BUD->setInvalidDecl(); > 11794 return true; > > ** CID 1457497: Integer handling issues (NEGATIVE_RETURNS) > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > *** CID 1457497: Integer handling issues (NEGATIVE_RETURNS) > /lld/MachO/InputSection.cpp: 117 in > lld::macho::CStringInputSection::getStringPiece(unsigned long) const() > 111 const StringPiece &CStringInputSection::getStringPiece(uint64_t > off) const { > 112 if (off >= data.size()) > 113 fatal(toString(this) + ": offset is outside the section"); > 114 > 115 auto it > 116 partition_point(pieces, [=](StringPiece p) { return > p.inSecOff <= off; }); > >>> CID 1457497: Integer handling issues (NEGATIVE_RETURNS) > >>> A negative constant "-1L" is passed as an argument to a parameter > that cannot be negative. >Doesn't sound correct - negatively indexing from an iterator is valid, I believe? (though perhaps this check is using some info about the nature of `partition_point` being able to return the begin iterator)> 117 return it[-1]; > 118 } > 119 > 120 uint64_t CStringInputSection::getFileOffset(uint64_t off) const { > 121 return parent->fileOff + getOffset(off); > 122 } > > ** CID 1457496: Possible Control flow issues (DEADCODE) > /clang/lib/Sema/SemaDeclCXX.cpp: 11833 in > clang::Sema::CheckUsingShadowDecl(clang::BaseUsingDecl *, clang::NamedDecl > *, const clang::LookupResult &, clang::UsingShadowDecl *&)() > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > *** CID 1457496: Possible Control flow issues (DEADCODE) > /clang/lib/Sema/SemaDeclCXX.cpp: 11833 in > clang::Sema::CheckUsingShadowDecl(clang::BaseUsingDecl *, clang::NamedDecl > *, const clang::LookupResult &, clang::UsingShadowDecl *&)() > 11827 // Target is not a function. > 11828 > 11829 if (isa<TagDecl>(Target)) { > 11830 // No conflict between a tag and a non-tag. > 11831 if (!Tag) return false; > 11832 > >>> CID 1457496: Possible Control flow issues (DEADCODE) > >>> Execution cannot reach this statement: "<temporary> > this->Diag(cl...". > 11833 Diag(BUD->getLocation(), diag::err_using_decl_conflict); > 11834 Diag(Target->getLocation(), diag::note_using_decl_target); > 11835 Diag(Tag->getLocation(), diag::note_using_decl_conflict); > 11836 BUD->setInvalidDecl(); > 11837 return true; > 11838 } > > ** CID 1419078: Resource leaks (VIRTUAL_DTOR) > /llvm/lib/Transforms/Instrumentation/PGOInstrumentation.cpp: 541 in () > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > *** CID 1419078: Resource leaks (VIRTUAL_DTOR) > /llvm/lib/Transforms/Instrumentation/PGOInstrumentation.cpp: 541 in () > 535 return (Twine(Removed ? "-" : " ") + (InMST ? " " : "*") + > 536 (IsCritical ? "c" : " ") + " W=" + > Twine(Weight)).str(); > 537 } > 538 }; > 539 > 540 // This class stores the auxiliary information for each BB. > >>> CID 1419078: Resource leaks (VIRTUAL_DTOR) > >>> Class "<unnamed>::BBInfo" does not have a virtual destructor. > 541 struct BBInfo { > 542 BBInfo *Group; > 543 uint32_t Index; > 544 uint32_t Rank = 0; > 545 > 546 BBInfo(unsigned IX) : Group(this), Index(IX) {} > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > To view the defects in Coverity Scan visit, > https://u15810271.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=HRESupC-2F2Czv4BOaCWWCy7my0P0qcxCbhZ31OYv50yqtGMuad6pPsL7inW23sAqZCWZD0rQ5FZsyk18zSjnBpg-3D-3Dqen7_nlj59xHPRAo5NMSpMZh-2B1UYnQ4IBJNE2FCxtFGv5-2FfRZ2ZNTfin-2BJg3vqHM-2BrKWO-2BwAgQVf1GGFXh4xVX9UzXjq3jPiI59xzjIzanRxv0XSIVZFqDyJd-2BdQm4cXqcdS7Dt0L1fNQpWyw15e-2BbU4YMt1YpKZVa4kbM7Bjl6hGDatG6tnUuz5zUAdmlq-2B7z2QmYSc2DTghseWofWoq-2Bn7ssA-3D-3D > > To manage Coverity Scan email notifications for "joker.eph at gmail.com", > click > https://u15810271.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=HRESupC-2F2Czv4BOaCWWCy7my0P0qcxCbhZ31OYv50yped04pjJnmXOsUBtKYNIXxUrjVeIJ0Cfeziujhnhh3yxzc7w9MgExjQKEssnVrR9tYRoPYlaXXfdUjwRQLJCdFixsrT7mUhUA9ixc9DPUdquU2MMNgdrF247xaBicB0V4-3Dht-M_nlj59xHPRAo5NMSpMZh-2B1UYnQ4IBJNE2FCxtFGv5-2FfRZ2ZNTfin-2BJg3vqHM-2BrKWOP6G0-2FiydipnYxIKl-2Bk7AFFr9CcUjQXx7tq4qtWbpBdzz7-2Bib4DWeMAf-2Bv0hl9c0qiwYnDVi4C3uD0F0P9wRuATKCNq-2FJGcnjmQ51zJUZdom9QcwJ2QwYMBBjOk8G2ylW4oH3PujCpojyn5dsLN7qdQ-3D-3D > > >> >> On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 7:37 AM Luke Benes via llvm-dev < >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >>> > https://scan.coverity.com/projects/llvm >>> > Should run once a day. >>> >>> Sylvester, >>> The report seems to be working perfectly. Thank you for taking the time >>> to get this up and running again! >>> >>> My only concern is that there is no visibly on these reports. Without >>> the new issues being reported here, it is highly unlikely that they will >>> get addressed. >>> >>> Since there was interest and no objections, could you please add the >>> [llvm-dev] list to the email? >>> >>> You can do this by going to the "Project Settings" page: >>> https://scan.coverity.com/projects/llvm?tab=project_settings >>> >>> "Additional Emails for New Defect Notifications" >>> -> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >>> >>> Then could you please lower the report frequency to once or twice a >>> week? With that we will receive weekly reports like this: >>> >>> >>> http://document-foundation-mail-archive.969070.n3.nabble.com/New-Defects-reported-by-Coverity-Scan-for-LibreOffice-td4301203.html >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> LLVM Developers mailing list >>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >> >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20210610/c640a83d/attachment.html>