<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
+actual Ravi as he prefers this address. Ravi is this dude -
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://github.com/ravikandhadai">https://github.com/ravikandhadai</a> - he's from the Swift universe and
he has a solid academic background in static analysis (unlike me
^_^") and every time i tell him we have a checker for this bug, he
gets more and more excited :p<br>
<br>
On 4/4/19 2:26 PM, Csaba Dabis wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAH8A0rrUNpb7SOUZNRCPiNTB+s9t2xexQ073W=dTkwkY9JTQzA@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">Hey Clang developers!
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I would like to participate in Google Summer of Code this
year. I am in my fourth semester BSc student of Computer
Science at Eotvos Lorand University, Hungary. I have started
to learn C++ parallel with Clang a year and a half ago. Also
that was the first time using Linux, Git, VIM…. I love
automation so this engine and tools based on Clang like
scan-build, CodeChecker, CodeCompass.<br>
<br>
I have picked the following project: <a
href="http://llvm.org/OpenProjects.html#analyze-llvm"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://llvm.org/OpenProjects.html#analyze-llvm</a></div>
<div>Here is the copy of the problems and their solutions from
my near-finished proposal:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<font size="4">Goals</font><br>
Eliminate 90% of the false positive findings in LLVM by teaching
C++ to the Static Analyzer. Improve the existing debugging
facilities so it would be easier to investigate errors. Report
and fix the easy-to-fix true positives in LLVM. Report the
difficult-to-fix true positives in LLVM so other developers with
better experience in that certain area could solve those. Swift
is another heavy project as an example to see how an
LLVM-related project reports are changing. Measure the quality
of the changes in Swift where no direct false positive
elimination happen. With these improvements let the LLVM and
related project contributors use the Static Analyzer sub-project
without any overhead in a continuous integration workflow.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
*approves the goals*<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAH8A0rrUNpb7SOUZNRCPiNTB+s9t2xexQ073W=dTkwkY9JTQzA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr"><font size="4">Overview of the debugging facilities</font><br>
The Clang Static Analyzer builds the exploded graph which
consists of program states as nodes. During the symbolic
execution each node represents everything what we know about the
program at a certain location.<br>
<br>
ExplodedGraph: We could investigate the graph with graphviz as
an .SVN file and using Google Chrome. The graph can be so
enormous so that Chrome crashes or even cannot load it. If you
are able to load it, there is too much information and it is
very difficult to use.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I mean, our exploded graph dumps are horrible, but i've been a happy
user of them for like 5 years. Pretty much every single bugfix that
i made so far involved an investigation via exploded graph dumps.
And on top of that, i'm not seeing much information that can be
removed from them. Yes, viewers are choking immediately, browsers
through svg conversion are doing better, especially chrome that
seems to have the most tolerant svg library. But whenever there
isn't way to view an exploded graph, it becomes 5x times harder to
debug anything.<br>
<br>
One of the more personal reasons why i've been rooting for this
project is that i wanted to popularize this systematic debugging
workflow of narrowing down the bug to the Static Analyzer function
in which it's happening that consists binary-searching the exploded
graph dump for invalid values and bindings. I guess i should
actually document it some day, like, you know, *for once*, 'cause
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://clang-analyzer.llvm.org/checker_dev_manual.html#visualizing">http://clang-analyzer.llvm.org/checker_dev_manual.html#visualizing</a>
is clearly insufficient.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAH8A0rrUNpb7SOUZNRCPiNTB+s9t2xexQ073W=dTkwkY9JTQzA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">Alternatively you could use LLDB debugger but
because of the such a complex background it is more difficult to
gather information which function causes the false positive.<br>
<br>
Debug checkers: debug.DumpCalls checker truly writes out every
function call, which is too much and too difficult to use.
Expression inspection checks[1] are useful for get a feeling
what could go wrong by writing out a certain program state, but
it cannot be used to compare states due to the graph structure.<br>
<br>
<font size="4">Proposed solutions for the debugging facilities</font><br>
ExplodedGraph: Create an .HTML frontend for the .SVG graph
representation. It could modify the full graph to only show
differences between states and it would recolour the current
representation for better readability.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
It'd be awesome to pull this off, but i suspect this undertaking
alone might take a few months of your time. I think you should keep
your eyes open for potential smaller improvements but generally try
to familiarize yourself with existing tools before building up
long-term plans in this direction.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAH8A0rrUNpb7SOUZNRCPiNTB+s9t2xexQ073W=dTkwkY9JTQzA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">Debug checkers: Create an option for
debug.DumpCalls checker to show only a certain variable and if
its value is unknown at the location of an error, point out when
it became unknown.<br>
<br>
<font size="4">Overview of the false positives</font><br>
My playground was the LLVM 8.0.0 bug-free release (20 March
2019). With the basic scan-build command 828 bug reports found.
Because of our precise review system they are most likely false
positive findings, where the half is ‘Memory leak’ (229) and
‘Called C++ object pointer is null’ (217) errors:
<div>- ‘Memory leak’: Half of the reports (118/229) appears in
Error.h on the same function call in different variations.<br>
- ‘Called C++ object pointer is null’: Third of the reports
happen on placement new operations.<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes! That's what i wanted to hear. Put this on the top :) Great job
identifying those top issues!<br>
<br>
I've been noticing placement-new bugs before, but i didn't ever
notice leaks in Error.h being a popular FP, nice catch! <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAH8A0rrUNpb7SOUZNRCPiNTB+s9t2xexQ073W=dTkwkY9JTQzA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><font size="4">Proposed solutions for the false positives</font><br>
One could say creating more assertions could remove the errors
and document the code better. Let think about the opposite:
removing every assertion like ‘assert()’ and ‘LLVM_DEBUG()’[2]
could show the weakness of the Static Analyzer. We cannot
force our users to double or triple the number of assertions
(even it would be very useful). With that, and the new
debug-facilities the door will be open to mitigate the false
positives.<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
That depends. When suppressing Static Analyzer false positives with
assertions, some assertions are great to add anyway as a means of
documentation and verification, while others do indeed look like
ridiculous false positive suppressions that clearly don't belong
here.<br>
<br>
Regardless of having to add an assertion or not, we should anyway in
parallel think whether we could have prevented the false positive
from happening in the first place.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAH8A0rrUNpb7SOUZNRCPiNTB+s9t2xexQ073W=dTkwkY9JTQzA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>It is impossible to measure how long does it take to
eliminate a false positive.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
*wholeheartedly agrees*<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAH8A0rrUNpb7SOUZNRCPiNTB+s9t2xexQ073W=dTkwkY9JTQzA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>If we think about sets of false positives as the two most
common factor is already known, we could define more sets. We
have to start the work from the highest set. The workflow is
the following: pick the most common false positive, if it is
necessary improve the debugging facilities, mitigate the
error, document that to LLVM Bugzilla, inject assertions to
problematic code, repeat.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yeah, something like that :)<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAH8A0rrUNpb7SOUZNRCPiNTB+s9t2xexQ073W=dTkwkY9JTQzA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
<div>-------------</div>
[1] ExprInspection checks: <a
href="https://clang.llvm.org/docs/analyzer/developer-docs/DebugChecks.html#exprinspection-checks"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://clang.llvm.org/docs/analyzer/developer-docs/DebugChecks.html#exprinspection-checks</a><br>
[2] LLVM_DEBUG(): <a
href="http://llvm.org/docs/ProgrammersManual.html#the-llvm-debug-macro-and-debug-option"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://llvm.org/docs/ProgrammersManual.html#the-llvm-debug-macro-and-debug-option</a>
<div>-------------</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Any feedback would be really appreciated.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks you,</div>
<div>Csaba.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>