On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 8:12 AM, Urias McCullough <umccullough@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 2:10 AM, Axel Dörfler <axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> It apparently reenabled bugs that were already marked as false positive, >>> such as 991758 -- that's pretty annoying. > > Indeed... In that particular example, I think Coverity is confused because the function signature has changed for the 64bit build. I'm not sure we can prevent that from "breaking" Coverity's intelligent "linking" of issues across scans :( Looking at other scenarios, I see the same type of potential issue. Should we simply avoid the 64bit streams for now? I will ask Coverity if there's a way to prevent this or not. - Urias