Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 11:11:18 -0800 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: Paul Traina <pst@shockwave.com> Cc: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@freefall.freebsd.org>, CVS-committers@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-all@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-lib@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/net getservent.c Message-ID: <12447.849813078@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 05 Dec 1996 10:53:51 PST." <199612051853.KAA03962@precipice.shockwave.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Since I'm being so contrarian today, -Wall and -pedantic will find 95% of the > same stuff that ParaSoft is finding, and we have it today. Actually, not in this case. I did actually think of that, and ran some comparative runs (my first question too: "I wonder how this compares to -Wall"). -Wall finds lots of "might be uninitialized" cases that Insure++ seems to ignore, but Insure++ in turn finds a lot more bogus casts and gratuitious address-of usage. It also caught the long != int declarations where gcc was strangely content. If the runtime also worked, I'd probably be finding a lot more malloc/bounds error stuff, it just seems to have trouble with our symbol tables vs BSD/OS's ones for now. Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?12447.849813078>