Re: clang static analysis

Markus Mützel <[email protected]> Sat, 3 Oct 2020 00:28:11 +0200

Newsgroups	gmane.comp.gnu.octave.maintainers
Message-ID	<trinity-c67f68c1-231e-4c77-a84f-e8f4025064b5-1601677691846@3c-app-gmx-bap35>

Am 02. Oktober 2020 um 22:10 Uhr schrieb "Dmitri A. Sergatskov":
> I ran a clang-11 static analysis on 2219027f5bd4 (stable).
> Results are available at:
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/13Qz6svSS4yEwffpNFkd7X-_wQN7ykLky/view?usp=sharing
 
The report indicates that constructs like the following are potential memory leaks:
  double lo = (lims.get ().matrix_value ())(0);

Is that true? Do the intermediate results need a scoped variable? 
It might be a false alarm. I don't know how such constructs are reference counted.

Markus