[cfe-dev] GSOC Static Analyzer Proposal

Richard Smith richard at metafoo.co.uk
Fri Apr 12 11:23:04 PDT 2013

On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Adam Schnitzer <adamschn at umich.edu> wrote:

> 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.

I made such a list when I started UBSan, and have (mostly) kept it
up-to-date with what we currently catch:


This only covers core language undefined behavior; the standard library is
another country ;)

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130412/70b22e1e/attachment.html>

More information about the cfe-dev mailing list