[cfe-dev] GSOC Static Analyzer Proposal

Adam Schnitzer adamschn at umich.edu
Fri Apr 12 20:25:49 PDT 2013

John and Richard,

Thank you for the great ideas. The idea of incorporating a randomization
heuristic is very interesting.
It certainly seems like a technique that could be applied in other contexts.

As far as the new "sequence points" rules, I guess it's time to hit the
standard again. I finally thought
I understood the C++03 rules too.


On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 5:35 PM, John Regehr <regehr at cs.utah.edu> wrote:

>  Unfortunately, I don't expect this to catch very many bugs which the
>> static check misses; this will
>> probably only catch cases where the modified objects are the same but not
>> "obviously" the same
> I still think this would be useful since any kind of indirection defeats
> the static check--a function call as in your example below isn't even
> needed.
> John
>    int n;
>>   int &f() { return n; }
>>   int g(int, int);
>>   int k = g(f()++, n);
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20130412/364fa4f4/attachment.html>

More information about the cfe-dev mailing list