[cfe-dev] Clang Analysis of glibc 2.13

[Ted Kremenek]

Nevermind; I should be able to reproduce this fairly easily.  Thanks for the data!

On May 10, 2011, at 9:57 AM, Ted Kremenek wrote:

> While the analyzer doesn't explicitly reason about complex numbers yet, it shouldn't issue a warning here either.  Can you file a bugzilla report with a self-contained test case?
> 
> On May 10, 2011, at 5:26 AM, Jonathan Sauer wrote:
> 
>> Hello,
>> 
>>> In case anyone is interested, I ran the clang analyzer on glibc 2.13.
>>> The resulting report can be downloaded here :
>>> 
>>> http://sites.google.com/site/clanganalyzer/home/glibc-213
>> 
>> Interesting. Luckily for getopt.c, the clang analyzer does not include a check for copied&pasted
>> code ;-)
>> 
>> Some of the reports seem to be false positives, though; e.g s_cosf.c:
>> 
>> 66	      __complex__ float y;
>> 67	 
>> 68	      __real__ y = -__imag__ x;
>> 69	      __imag__ y = __real__ x;
>> 70	 
>> 71	      res = __ccoshf (y);
>> 		2	Function call argument is an uninitialized value
>> 
>> It seems that the clang analyzer does not understand glibc's handling of complex numbers and thus
>> does not notice that "y" is initialized in lines 68f.
>> 
>> 
>> Jonathan
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> cfe-dev mailing list
>> cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20110510/37031946/attachment.html>