Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu> writes:
> I think most of the remaining false positives are cases where palloc,
> palloc0, repalloc, MemoryContextAlloc, or MemoryContextAllocZero
> return values are deferenced. Clang doesn't know that these functions
> never return NULL so it's marking every case as a possible NULL
> dereference.
If clang assumes that every function that returns a pointer could return
NULL, then we are going to have many many many many false positives
at levels far removed from palloc. I'd almost suggest that we look for
a way to reverse its default assumption about that. Failing that,
I fear we shall simply have to ignore that particular message as
uselessly noisy.
regards, tom lane
