From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38994) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YGPOS-00066L-E0 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 04:58:41 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YGPOO-0000PS-Dq for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 04:58:40 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:37840) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YGPOO-0000PI-7A for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 04:58:36 -0500 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t0S9wZSa007259 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 04:58:35 -0500 From: Markus Armbruster Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 10:58:29 +0100 Message-Id: <1422439112-12336-1-git-send-email-armbru@redhat.com> Subject: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/3] coverity: Improve and extend model List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: pbonzini@redhat.com I examined the differences between local scans with and without a derived model file for GLib, to gauge what we're missing (the Coverity Scan service we use can't do derived model files). Doesn't look bad, but a few missed memory leaks caught my attention. I improved our model file to catch them (PATCH 1+2). Topped off with PATCH 3 to catch mixing up g_free() and free(). Markus Armbruster (3): coverity: Improve model for GLib memory allocation coverity: Model GLib string allocation partially coverity: Model g_free() isn't necessarily free() scripts/coverity-model.c | 228 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 193 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-) -- 1.9.3