From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53AF11F4F8 for ; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 21:40:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932784AbcJTVks (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Oct 2016 17:40:48 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:60295 "EHLO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932169AbcJTVks (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Oct 2016 17:40:48 -0400 Received: (qmail 4283 invoked by uid 109); 20 Oct 2016 21:40:47 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 21:40:47 +0000 Received: (qmail 30348 invoked by uid 111); 20 Oct 2016 21:41:10 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 17:41:09 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 20 Oct 2016 17:40:45 -0400 Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 17:40:45 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Stefan Beller Cc: "git@vger.kernel.org" , Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: Fwd: New Defects reported by Coverity Scan for git Message-ID: <20161020214045.gpe352xnw5oc36ur@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <580893d5a4736_4ed37b53181837@ss1435.mail> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 10:05:38AM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote: > Not sure what triggered the new finding of coverity as seen below as the > parse_commit() was not touched. Junios series regarding the merge base > optimization touches a bit of code nearby though. I have noticed that "old" problems sometimes reappear when nearby code changes. I assume that they have some kind of heuristic to identify the location of a defect, that it probably includes the line number in the file, and that it can be fooled by too much code appearing nearby. -Peff