Markus Elfring

Will an unique subject become more helpful also for this issue? Would you like to avoid any confusion for relevant content differences?

I observed that the analysis tool “Cppcheck 2.10.3-2.1” did not warn about undefined behaviour in the following source code example. int my_test(void) { struct x * p1 = NULL; struct y * p2 = &(p1->my_item); if (!p1) return EINVAL; return 0; } Will the software development attention grow according to such questionable access attempts for data structure members?

I got into the mood to repeat this analysis approach for the tool version “2.9.3”. Thus I determined by my SmPL script “list_often_used_match_expressions.cocci” that 197 patterns were passed more than once to the member function “Token::Match”. 🔮 Will such incidence statistics trigger further software evolution?

💭 I am curious if another software developer (besides me) can get into the mood to apply a corresponding update suggestion which could be generated by the software “Coccinelle” (also with the help of a variant from the following script). @Remove_unnecessary_pointer_checks@ expression x; @@ -if (\(x != 0 \| x != NULL\)) free(x);

I am trying to increase the development attention also for tools like the following. Semantic patch language (Coccinelle software) AspectC++ Cppcheck Splint

I would prefer to get rid of another bit of redundant source code.

How do you think about to improve static source code analysis also for this software?

Remove unnecessary null pointer checks