[tz] 2020c zic code draws complaints from Coverity
eggert at cs.ucla.edu
Sun Oct 18 20:51:01 UTC 2020
On 10/18/20 7:31 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> The Coverity static-analysis tool , which is moderately widely
> used by open-source projects, doesn't much like this:
> 789 if (bloat == 0)
>>>> CID 1468262: Incorrect expression (CONSTANT_EXPRESSION_RESULT)
>>>> "strcmp("slim", "slim")" is always 0 because ""slim"" is compared against itself.
> 790 bloat = strcmp(ZIC_BLOAT_DEFAULT, "slim") == 0 ? -1 : 1;
> This is just a bug-finding heuristic, of course, and it won't trouble
> me that much to ignore the warning. Still, I wonder why it's coded
> this way
Thanks for reporting that. The idea was to give a way for distributions to
specify zic's default -b behavior, via:
as documented in the Makefile. I didn't want the values -1, 1 (which are
internal details) to creep into the Makefile instructions, and I was thinking
that future zic versions might support other -b variants like '-b lean'.
That being said, it'd be nicer to pacify Coverity, and to catch misspellings, so
I installed the attached proposed patch to try to do that. I don't have access
to Coverity so someone else will need to try the Coverity part of this patch.
If this doesn't pacify Coverity, perhaps we should just remove support for
ZIC_BLOAT_DEFAULT as I don't think anybody's using it. Distributions that want
fat TZif files seem to be using "make ZFLAGS='-b fat'" instead.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 1584 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the tz