Issues

[Andrey2011]

I've tested my PVS-Studio analyzer with Newton Game Dynamics. While analyzing this project I've found some warnings and decided to mention it. Hope it will come in handy. The general-purpose analyzer generated these warning:

V512 A call of the 'memset' function will lead to a buffer overflow or underflow. physics dgcollisioncompoundbreakable.cpp 702

Code: Select all

dgCollisionCompoundBreakable::dgCollisionCompoundBreakable (...)
{
  ...
  dgInt32 faceOffsetHitogram[256];
  dgSubMesh* mainSegmenst[256];
  ...
  memset (faceOffsetHitogram, 0, sizeof (faceOffsetHitogram));
  memset (mainSegmenst, 0, sizeof (faceOffsetHitogram));
  ...
}

Correct: memset (mainSegmenst, 0, sizeof (mainSegmenst));

-----

V519 The 'damp' object is assigned values twice successively. Perhaps this is a mistake. physics dgbody.cpp 404

Code: Select all

void dgBody::AddBuoyancyForce (...)
{
  ...
  damp = (m_omega % m_omega) * dgFloat32 (10.0f) * fluidAngularViscousity;
  damp = GetMax (GetMin ((m_omega % m_omega) * dgFloat32 (1000.0f) * fluidAngularViscousity, dgFloat32(0.25f)), dgFloat32(2.0f));
  ...
}

-----

V502 Perhaps the '?:' operator works in a different way than it was expected. The '?:' operator has a lower priority than the '*' operator. physics dgminkowskiconv.cpp 1061

Code: Select all

dgInt32 CalculateConvexShapeIntersection (...)
{
  ...
  den = dgFloat32 (1.0e-24f) *
        (den > dgFloat32 (0.0f)) ? dgFloat32 (1.0f) : dgFloat32 (-1.0f);
  ...
}

This code is incorrect as the priority of '?:' operator is lower than of '*'. The correct version is:

Code: Select all

den = dgFloat32 (1.0e-24f) *
        ((den > dgFloat32 (0.0f)) ? dgFloat32 (1.0f) : dgFloat32 (-1.0f));

[Andrey2011]

And: V502 Perhaps the '?:' operator works in a different way than it was expected. The '?:' operator has a lower priority than the '*' operator. physics dgminkowskiconv.cpp 1081

[Julio Jerez]

wow thank you for the bug report,
of the three the last two were harmless, the first one will be fatal in 64 bit system but because the size of pointer is different than the size of int.

Thank you for running the engine truoght that tool, I am surprice it only found three errors, considering I never run newton troughtsuch tools.
My trick to make it robust is compiling with as many compilers as I come across.
so far it passes with GCC, Matrox code worrrior, Intel 8.0 and 10.0 and Visual studio all versions starting with VS6, and none detected those flaws.

The Bugs waere fixed and checked in, please sync to SVN again, and Please let me know if you find some more weak code.