This all sounds good to me. I think the patch can go in as is.
On Jul 21, 2011, at 4:04 PM, Kaelyn Uhrain wrote:
> Hi Ted,
>
> I've attached a new version of my patch that moves the pointer arithmetic
> portion of the -Warray-bounds improvements into a separate flag,
> -Warray-bounds-pointer-arithmetic. Since the remaining noise in the pointer
> arithmetic check is more a case of undefined behavior that does the right
> thing with most (all?) compilers than a case of being true false positives,
> the plan is to have -Warray-bounds-pointer-arithmetic initially be disabled
> by default and in later patches to enhance the warning by e.g. providing a
> fixit note to add parens to exprs like "ptr + sizeof("foo") - 1" so they
> become "ptr + (sizeof("foo")) - 1".
>
> Cheers,
> Kaelyn
>
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Ted Kremenek <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Kaelyn,
>
> While I think there will be some contention here, I think this is still too
> high of a false positive rate for this warning to be on by default in the
> compiler. Users simply aren't going to tolerate it. I think it is
> reasonable for a codebase to adopt a strict policy for this warning, but I
> don't think a 17% false positive rate (or possibly higher) is acceptable for
> a default warning for all users of Clang.
>
> Unless you believe you think there are additional heuristics to drop the
> false positive rate down below 5-10%, I think I'm fine with proceeding as
> putting this in as an opt-in warning, and then refine from there.
>
> On Jul 20, 2011, at 11:39 AM, Kaelyn Uhrain wrote:
>
>> I've attached an updated version of my patch that better handles cases where
>> pointer arithmetic is done after casting a constant-size array to a pointer
>> for a smaller base type (e.g. casting an int array to char*). Of the pointer
>> arithmetic warnings, about 24% could be considered false positives; however,
>> the actual number of false positives is quite small and 2/3 of them stem
>> from the use of a single macro--if you count those as a single warning &
>> false positive, the rate drops to 17%. Of the false positives most are from
>> semi-questionable pointer arithmetic where a constant greater than the
>> length of the array/pointer is being added to the pointer and some int > 1
>> being subtracted from it, e.g.:
>>
>> void foo(int n) {
>> char x[5];
>> if (n > 0) bar(x + 6 - n);
>> }
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Kaelyn
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Kaelyn Uhrain <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I'm still looking at the pointer arithmetic warnings to determine which are
>> false positives, but I realized I screwed up my previous stats a bit as I
>> forgot to account for duplicated/repeated warnings (e.g. the same header
>> included in multiple compilation units and so generating the same warnings
>> multiple times). For unique warnings, the stats are:
>>
>> - 16.5% increase in warnings from before my patch (originally reported a 24%
>> increase)
>> - 47% of those new warnings being about pointer arithmetic
>> - 6.7% of all of the warnings emitted with my patch applied are concerning
>> pointer arithmetic. (originally reported 8.3%)
>> - The new pointer arithmetic warnings represent a 7.7% increase in warnings
>> from before my patch, not 10%.
>>
>> I'll send another email once I have a feel for how noisy the pointer
>> arithmetic warnings are.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Kaelyn
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Kaelyn Uhrain <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Ted,
>>
>> You're welcome. I'll try to figure out what fraction of the pointer
>> arithmetic warnings are false positives (requires a bit of manual digging on
>> my part to determine if the code is indeed buggy or if it is valid /
>> intended). For the overall 24% increase in warnings, keep in mind that over
>> half of that is the existing bounds checking now being applied to cases
>> where it wasn't before, i.e.:
>>
>> char *foo[5];
>> foo[77]; // -Warray-bounds already found
>> &foo[77]; // -Warray-bounds currently misses
>> *foo[77]; // -Warray-bounds currently misses
>>
>> The function that did the bounds checking would never catch the last two
>> cases because it would see a UnaryOperator (in the above cases for the '&'
>> and the '*') and skip the expression instead of looking inside the
>> UnaryOperator expression for the array subscripting.
>>
>> The new pointer arithmetic bounds checking only represents a 10% increase in
>> warnings--and IMHO that is the only part where the number of false positives
>> introduced might be an issue.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Kaelyn
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Ted Kremenek <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Hi Kaelyn,
>>
>> Thanks for the statistics. What would be good to know is what fraction of
>> these are false positives (i.e., are these all real bugs)? A small random
>> sample might be helpful. A 24% increase in warnings is fairly substantial,
>> and we don't want to do that unless there is a real benefit.
>>
>> Ted
>>
>> On Jul 18, 2011, at 5:18 PM, Kaelyn Uhrain wrote:
>>
>>> Ted,
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 5:04 PM, Ted Kremenek <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> The only other issue: should this be controlled under a separate warning
>>> flag, at least initially so we can experiment with this new warning and see
>>> how noisy it is? E.g. "-Warray-bounds-pointer-arithmetic".
>>>
>>> I've tested the -Warray-bounds changes against the Google codebase and my
>>> patch increases the number of warnings from -Warray-bounds by 24%. Of the
>>> new warnings, 57.33% are for array indexes that most likely weren't picked
>>> up before because of unary operators like & or * (11.1% of all the warnings
>>> now emitted), and the remaining 42.67% are from out-of-bounds pointer
>>> arithmetic (8.3% of all the warnings from -Warray-bounds).
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Kaelyn
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <array-bounds-enhancement3.diff>
>
>
> <array-bounds-enhancement4.diff>
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
