Opened 8 years ago
Last modified 8 years ago
#3954 new defect
Potential bugs from static code analysis — at Version 3
Reported by: | Henning Kiel | Owned by: | Lennart Ochel |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | normal | Milestone: | Future |
Component: | Code Generation | Version: | v1.10.0-dev-nightly |
Keywords: | Cc: | Martin Sjölund, Adrian Pop |
Description (last modified by )
I'm referencing from run "Tue Jun 7 21:05:18 2016" with 3483 warnings
(approx. commit bb33335a639ba7a14c88f997355f1d41bfe37589)
I wonder if 3rdParty code should be checked, because we cannot do anything about it, right?
[ ] 1. virtually all files
(this is not a bug, but superfluous code, slowing down C compiler)
Common problem with match expressions "Value stored to 'tmp4' is never read" (because of failure handling?) creates hundreds of warnings and makes this static analysis difficult to read
[x] 2. Absyn.mo 3584
value stored to l2 is never read -> getCrefFromExp() stop expression is lost
[ ] 3. BackendDAEOptimize.mo 1763
value stored to compInfos is never read -> info from called function is lost, function returns defaults only
[x] 4. BackendDAEOptimize.mo 879
value stored to lsteqns is never read -> BackendEquation.equationList(eqns) called twice
[ ] 5. BackendDAEOptimize.mo 4350
value stored in expLst is never read -> list obtained from right side is directly overwritten by empty list
[ ] 6. BackendDAEDump.mo 888
value stored in expLst is never read -> string with equationKindString is not used
[ ] 7. BackendEquation.mo 1066,1055,1042
use of uninitialized variable b
[ ] 8. BackendInline.mo 792
output variable outEquationArray not initialized
[ ] 9. BackendVariable.mo 2891,2882,2898
value stored in res is never read -> call to replaceVarWithWholeDimSubs() seems useless
[ ] 10. BaseHashTable.mo 213
value stored in n is never read -> valueArrayLength() explicitly read but not used
[ ] 11. CevalFunction.mo 2672
value stored in deps is never read -> is this wanted?
[ ] 12. CevalFunction.mo 2310,1976,2280
value stored in cache is never read -> should following functions start with inCache or cache from previous call?
More to come (checked Compiler/boot/build/*.c alphabetically up to and including CevalFunction.c)
Items marked with [x] are already fixed.
Change History (3)
comment:1 by , 8 years ago
Cc: | added |
---|
comment:2 by , 8 years ago
Description: | modified (diff) |
---|
comment:3 by , 8 years ago
Description: | modified (diff) |
---|
Added a few more items.
I see that some warnings are duplicated. Do they come from different stages of compilation?