When you divide an int by an int and get a fraction and _then_ cast
to double, coverity assumes that you meant to cast to a double
first.
In my fix for -Wfloat-conversion in 493499a339, I
did something like this that coverity didn't like.
Instead, I'm taking another approach here.
Fixes CID 1232089, I hope.
This is a big-ish patch, but it's very straightforward. Under this
clang warning, we're not actually allowed to have a global variable
without a previous extern declaration for it. The cases where we
violated this rule fall into three roughly equal groups:
* Stuff that should have been static.
* Stuff that was global but where the extern was local to some
other C file.
* Stuff that was only global when built for the unit tests, that
needed a conditional extern in the headers.
The first two were IMO genuine problems; the last is a wart of how
we build tests.
This warning triggers on silently promoting a float to a double. In
our code, it's just a sign that somebody used a float by mistake,
since we always prefer double.
This warning, IIUC, means that the compiler doesn't like it when it
sees a NULL check _after_ we've already dereferenced the
variable. In such cases, it considers itself free to eliminate the
NULL check.
There are a couple of tricky cases:
One was the case related to the fact that tor_addr_to_in6() can
return NULL if it gets a non-AF_INET6 address. The fix was to
create a variant which asserts on the address type, and never
returns NULL.
This is a fairly easy way for us to get our test coverage up on
compat_threads.c and workqueue.c -- I already implemented these
tests, so we might as well enable them.
Previously, we used !directory_fetches_from_authorities() to predict
that we would tunnel connections. But the rules have changed
somewhat over the course of 0.2.8
So, back long ago, XXX012 meant, "before Tor 0.1.2 is released, we
had better revisit this comment and fix it!"
But we have a huge pile of such comments accumulated for a large
number of released versions! Not cool.
So, here's what I tried to do:
* 0.2.9 and 0.2.8 are retained, since those are not yet released.
* XXX+ or XXX++ or XXX++++ or whatever means, "This one looks
quite important!"
* The others, after one-by-one examination, are downgraded to
plain old XXX. Which doesn't mean they aren't a problem -- just
that they cannot possibly be a release-blocking problem.
There was a > that should have been an ==, and a missing !. These
together prevented us from issuing a warning in the case that a
nickname matched an Unnamed node only.
Fixes bug 19203; bugfix on 0.2.3.1-alpha.
Nick Mathewson
Andrea Shepard
Roger Dingledine
Karsten Loesing
George Kadianakis