[llvm-dev] Noob question from friend of cybersecu guy

[pawel k. via llvm-dev]

Hello,
Oh i found out its mostly or only runtime. I was thinking of something
similar but mostly or only compile-time. Its great base for my solution
though.

Best regards,
Pawel Kunio

śr., 21.04.2021, 10:21 użytkownik Victor Campos <victor at victorcampos.me>
napisał:

> clang -fsanitize=undefined might be what you're looking for.
>
> https://clang.llvm.org/docs/UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer.html
>
> Cheers,
> Victor.
>
> On Wed, 21 Apr 2021, at 03:55, pawel k. via llvm-dev wrote:
> > Hello,
> > In previous life i knew one cybersecu bounty hunter. As a leftover from
> > then, i was wondering whether it would be useful and feasible to have
> > in clang or clang static analyzer the checks for two classes of awkward
> > types of code. Namely c++'ses 191 undefined behaviours and 52
> > unspecified behaviours. That could possibly help to automatically
> > pinpoint the nonportable or randomly code working only because of
> > coincidence. Whether wed warn or err on such shall be up for discussion.
> >
> > Sorry if that is super obvious and already implemented or np hard or
> useless.
> >
> > If interested author of csmith might know something about full list of
> > these as he is author of randome code generator that avoids genning
> > code with such artifacts.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Pawel Kunio
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > LLVM Developers mailing list
> > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev%40lists.llvm.org>
> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20210421/03031ffc/attachment.html>