Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add more checks #126

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 2, 2021
Merged

Add more checks #126

merged 1 commit into from
Nov 2, 2021

Conversation

DimitriPapadopoulos
Copy link
Contributor

Just to see whether this raises a few (real) issues.

@DimitriPapadopoulos
Copy link
Contributor Author

It looks like +security-extended mostly results in false positives. Is it worth the pain?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@DimitriPapadopoulos DimitriPapadopoulos left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

CodeQL generates false positives. It's disturbingly unable to analyse C code properly.

You can dismiss the error to have it go away.

@LB--
Copy link
Member

LB-- commented Sep 3, 2021

Hm, I almost wondered if it was smart enough to see some code path where it got assigned from an uninitialized value after being assigned properly, but that doesn't seem to be the case. It does seem to be a false positive, weirdly, since root is unconditionally assigned to in both the first and second pass. I will report it as a false positive and I guess we shall see what happens...

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants