[Dnsmasq-discuss] Announce: dnsmasq-2.76

[Matthias Andree]

Am 20.05.2016 um 23:03 schrieb Simon Kelley:
> Apologies for jumping the gun on you. As a general thing, a quick email
> in reply to an rc1 announcement is enough to hold things until an issue
> has been addressed.
> 
> I checked those warnings, and they're all false positives. The static
> analysis is clever, but not clever enough.

Hi Simon,

Good to know, and thanks for looking.

I took a false positive into account especially on the FreeBSD 9.3
warnings that are gone on 10.1; FreeBSD 9.3 uses a pretty old GCC
version ("cc (GCC) 4.2.1 20070831 patched [FreeBSD]", ISTR it branched
off before a license change), while FreeBSD 10.1 and 10.3 use clang
3.4.1.  We can use other compilers, but I find it unnecessary to do for
most projects written in C, it's more interesting for computing business
when you're into OpenMP, C++11 or newer and the likes.

> This release of dnsmasq has gone through a coverity scan, which is the
> ultimate static analysis, AFAIK. Even that generates lots of false
> positives, and rather then warp the code to make the analysis work, I
> adopted a policy of marking warnings as "not an issue".

Yeah, although in some cases an unneeded " = 0" or "= {0}"
initialization calms all static analyzers at the same time. ;-)

> Coverity builds under Linux, so the BSD-only code in the tree is not
> checked that way, unfortunately.

How much code is that, aside from a few API calls?
I never bothered to take a closer look.

> Thanks for committing 2.76.

My pleasure.

Cheers,
Matthias