[cfe-dev] GSOC Static Analyzer Proposal

Adam Schnitzer adamschn at umich.edu
Wed Apr 10 14:07:30 PDT 2013

John and Sean,

Thank you very much for the feedback. I have a better idea of scope and
where to focus.

John, I think you're absolutely right, with -fsanitize=undefined and
others, more behavior is being caught at runtime/compile time. I will start
working on a list of behaviors for which no diagnostics currently exist,
and select a subset to focus on.


On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 1:54 PM, John Regehr <regehr at cs.utah.edu> wrote:

> I would like to work on improving support for C++ in the static analyzer.
>> Specifically, I think it
>> would be valuable to improve the checkers for undefined behavior
>> including those already suggested.
> I'd be happy to provide feedback on a more specific version of this part
> of the proposal.
> In particular, a useful starting point (maybe this already exists?) would
> be a list of all C/C++ undefined behaviors broken down by whether
> Clang/LLVM...
> - can reliably provide a compile-time diagnostic
> - can reliably provide a runtime diagnostic
> - cannot provide any diagnostic, but implements a predictable behavior
> - cannot provide any diagnostic and also implements unpredictable behavior
> Obviously the last category is the interesting place for future work.
> John
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20130410/d9b168d3/attachment.html>

More information about the cfe-dev mailing list