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

[Jean-Daniel Dupas]

I was waiting that the C++ analyzer be a little more mature, but if you tell it is worth filling bugs now, be sure I will do it.

Le 21 févr. 2011 à 20:11, Argyrios Kyrtzidis a écrit :

> 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
> 

-- Jean-Daniel