Re: New Defects reported by Coverity Scan for RTEMS-Newlib

Confirming I should mark then as false positives.

Thanks.

On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 6:02 AM Corinna Vinschen <[email protected]>
wrote:

> On Feb 11 10:50, Alexey Lapshin wrote:
> > Hi, interesting finding,
> >
> > Are not all these found "underflows" issues false-positive?
> > Because all of them are under `while(!TOO_SMALL_LITTLE_BLOCK(len))` block
> > which guarantees no underflow of "len" variable
>
> Yeah, looks like false positives to me, too.
>
>
> Corinna
>
>