xazax.hun added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D15227#681127, @zaks.anna wrote:
> > But as far as I remember, this produced false negatives in the tests not
> > false positives.
>
> Could you double check that? Maybe you still have some notes in your mail box
> or just by looking at
zaks.anna added a comment.
> But as far as I remember, this produced false negatives in the tests not
> false positives.
Could you double check that? Maybe you still have some notes in your mail box
or just by looking at the code.
Did none of the checks work or just some of them?
Also,
xazax.hun added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D15227#674278, @zaks.anna wrote:
> @xazax.hun,
>
> Can we move this out of alpha?
>
> Have this checkers been tested on a large codebase? What are false positive
> rates?
I have tested it on a few ~200k LOC C codebase and I did not see
zaks.anna added a comment.
@xazax.hun,
Can we move this out of alpha?
Have this checkers been tested on a large codebase? What are false positive
rates?
Thanks!
Anna
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D15227
___
cfe-commits mailing
xazax.hun added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D15227#521781, @NoQ wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D15227#519239, @xazax.hun wrote:
>
> > I suspect that slightly different AST is generated for those architectures
> > that cause the different behavior. I will further investigate
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
Closed by commit rL279427: Reapply "[analyzer] Added valist related checkers."
(authored by xazax).
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D15227
Files:
NoQ added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D15227#519239, @xazax.hun wrote:
> I suspect that slightly different AST is generated for those architectures
> that cause the different behavior. I will further investigate those problems.
Seems so, because on my machine when i append `-triple
xazax.hun reopened this revision.
xazax.hun added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
It looks like it broke some of the build bots.
Error from the windows build bots:
error: 'note' diagnostics expected but not seen:
File
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
Closed by commit rL279041: [analyzer] Added valist related checkers. (authored
by xazax).
Changed prior to commit:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D15227?vs=68157=68497#toc
Repository:
rL LLVM
xazax.hun updated this revision to Diff 68157.
xazax.hun marked 5 inline comments as done.
xazax.hun added a comment.
- Improvements according to review comments.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D15227
Files:
include/clang/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/Checkers.td
NoQ added a comment.
The checker's in great shape! I see a few minor things, but that's it.
The checks are split into two sections ("uninitialized" and "unterminated"),
but there seem to be more auxiliary checks provided (eg. "copies into itself")
that are on for both checkers, do you think
dcoughlin added inline comments.
Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/ValistChecker.cpp:177
@@ +176,3 @@
+ if (ExplodedNode *N = C.addTransition(State))
+reportLeakedVALists(LeakedVALists, "Initialized va_list", " is leaked", C,
+N);
xazax.hun marked 10 inline comments as done.
xazax.hun added a comment.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D15227
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
zaks.anna added inline comments.
Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/ValistChecker.cpp:31
@@ +30,3 @@
+struct VAListAcceptingFunc {
+ mutable IdentifierInfo *II;
+ StringRef FuncName;
It does not support ObjC methods.
I think this is most useful to checker
xazax.hun marked 9 inline comments as done.
xazax.hun added a comment.
It was tested on gcc and rAthena (https://github.com/rathena/rathena). It did
not find any issues in those projects, but I was able to find some issues that
I artificially put into those projects.
Comment
zaks.anna added a comment.
Looks good overall; comments below.
Please, provide more information on real world code evaluation. Which codebases
this has been tested on? What was the false positive rate? How many real bugs
were found/fixed?
What is the criteria for taking it out of alpha?
xazax.hun created this revision.
xazax.hun added reviewers: dcoughlin, zaks.anna, jordan_rose.
xazax.hun added subscribers: dkrupp, cfe-commits.
This checker was developed by Donat Nagy (m1nag...@gmail.com) and myself.
It finds usages of uninitialized va_lists, and also unterminated va_lists.
17 matches
Mail list logo
