[cfe-dev] C++ analysis vs C analysis

[Argyrios Kyrtzidis]

It'd be a good idea to file bugs for the false positives when analyzing C++ code so we can keep track of them.

-Argiris

On Feb 21, 2011, at 8:14 AM, Jean Baptiste LE STANG wrote:

> OK, thanks. At least a result with false positive is better than no
> result at all. I'm going to try with a recent SVN version.
> 
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Jean-Daniel Dupas
> <devlists at shadowlab.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Le 21 févr. 2011 à 16:57, Jean Baptiste LE STANG a écrit :
>> 
>>> Hello,
>>> 
>>> I'm trying to use LLVM & scan-build (clang 2.8, checker-255) to
>>> achieve a static analysis of  a C++ program to detect potential bugs.
>>> Before doing it on my real program, I've been trying to make it work
>>> on a simple program :
>>> 
>>> int main(int argc, char * argv[] , char * arge[]){
>>>       int i;
>>>       if (i<5){
>>>               i = 50;
>>>       }
>>>       return i;
>>> }
>>> 
>>> First case as a C program : scan-build -k -V -v gcc main.c
>>> 
>>> ANALYZE: main.c main
>>> main.c:4:14: warning: The left operand of '<' is a garbage value
>>>       if (i<5){
>>> 
>>> Second case as a C++ program :  scan-build -k -V -v g++ main.cpp and
>>> i'm missing the previous error detected in scenario 1
>> 
>> The static analyzer does not support C++ yet.
>> The svn version starts to support it but it is not ready to use AFAIK.
>> I tried it last week, and it reported a lot of false positives.
>> 
>> -- Jean-Daniel
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev