Hi,
On 2025-04-03 16:16:50 -0300, Ranier Vilela wrote:
> Em qui., 3 de abr. de 2025 às 15:35, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
> escreveu:> > On 2025-04-03 13:46:39 -0300, Ranier Vilela wrote:
> > > Em qua., 2 de abr. de 2025 às 08:58, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
> > > escreveu:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I've pushed fixes for 1) and 2) and am working on 3).
> > > >
> > > Coverity has one report about this.
> > >
> > > CID 1596092: (#1 of 1): Uninitialized scalar variable (UNINIT)
> > > 13. uninit_use_in_call: Using uninitialized value result_one. Field
> > > result_one.result is uninitialized when calling pgaio_result_report.
> >
> > Isn't this a rather silly thing to warn about for coverity?
>
> Personally, I consider every warning to be important.
If the warning is wrong, then it's not helpful. Warning quality really
matters.
Zero-initializing everything *REDUCES* what static analysis and sanitizers can
do. The analyzer/sanitizer can't tell that you just silenced a warning by
zero-initializing something that shouldn't be accessed. If later there is an
access, the zero is probably the wrong value, but the no tool can tell you,
because you did initialize it after all.
>
> > The field isn't
> > used in pgaio_result_report(). It can't be a particularly rare thing to
> > have
> > struct fields that aren't always used?
> >
> Always considered a risk, someone may start using it.
That makes it worse! E.g. valgrind won't raise errors about it anymore.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
