[cfe-dev] GSOC Static Analyzer Proposal

Adam Schnitzer adamschn at umich.edu
Thu Apr 11 09:24:47 PDT 2013

Thanks, I'll check that out.

Maybe it would be helpful if I compiled a general list of what UB is being
caught and where. Would anyone else have any interest?


On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 4:37 AM, Magnus Reftel <magnus.reftel at gmail.com>wrote:

> On 10 April 2013 19:54, 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.
> A list of all undefined/implementation defined/unspecified behaviour in
> ANSI-C and a classification of which can be determined statically and/or
> dynamically can be found in Les Hatton's Safer C. Perhaps that could be of
> help when examining where Clang is on those items?
> Best Regards
> Magnus Reftel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20130411/255cb779/attachment.html>

More information about the cfe-dev mailing list