From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 44A683858430; Tue, 16 Nov 2021 11:32:18 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 44A683858430 From: "alx.manpages at gmail dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug analyzer/103233] Warning from system libraries in user code: CWE-476 -Werror=analyzer-null-dereference Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2021 11:32:18 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: analyzer X-Bugzilla-Version: unknown X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: alx.manpages at gmail dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: WAITING X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2021 11:32:18 -0000 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D103233 --- Comment #8 from alx.manpages at gmail dot com --- Hi Andrew, On 11/16/21 00:52, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D103233 >=20 > --- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski --- > (In reply to Alejandro Colomar from comment #5) >> If glibc had a bug, >> and I compiled a C program that had perfectly defined behavior, >> would I receive a report for that error? >=20 > Most C headers don't contain that much code in them unlike C++ headers wh= ich > contains a lot of the code due to template and such. > That being said if there was a C system header that had an issue and anal= yzer > was used and it would definitely report the failure. >=20 > But that ignores the issue that C system headers are mostly just function > declarations and does not include much function definitions at all. > So again this is not just C vs C++ but rather how much code is in C++ sys= tem > headers and C++ not being supported. Seems fair enough to me. Feel free to close the bug. Thanks, Alex=