Agreed too. Generic "error on overflow" is not an answer, and ignoring overflow
is not an answer either because flagging faulty memory allocations is an
important feature.
Brian
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, March 2, 2021 6:09 PM, Jeff Law
Wow! I wasn't expecting that to work. Obviously we know that there is currently
no handler for binop_svalue in the constraints so I would have to watch it run
with
state merging disabled to see how it is managing the unroll. The fact that
merging
breaks it is indicative of what we are saying
I have been kicking these sorts of ideas around ever since I came to understand
that
the second "UNKNOWN" in the for loop that originally started this was due to
the state
merge as we loop. For now, and I don't mean this disrespectfully because it is
very
hard to get right, the whole issue of
Hi,
It may not be worth altering at this point, but it seems like it would leave
less
bugs open if all the constraints go in as "closed" ranges and all evals are
translated to closed intervals. So, if (idx > 0) and if (idx >= 1) are the same
constraint. I know this won't be an option for
Hi,
Please find a patch to fix part of the bug PR analyzer/94362. This bug is a
false positive for a null dereference found when compiling openssl. The cause
is the constraint_manager not knowing that i >= 0 within the for block:
for ( ; i-- > 0; )
The bug can be further reduced to the
Hi David,
Please find my revised patch attached. You should find all items addressed. I
have bootstrapped and rerun the testsuite (gcc and g++ only). Also, you
should have seen my legal paperwork go in.
1) The commit message has been updated to reflect the nomenclature in the
testsuite, as well
Hi David,
I'm sorry but I wanted to get this out to you. To clarify, I had a statement of
the form:
end_offset <= covering_field->field_decl.bit_offset->int_cst.val[0]
covering_field->decl_common.size->int_cst.val[0] - 1;
(Sorry if my email is clobbering the angle brackets). I have
David,
Two items I needs answered to get you the patch.
1) The get_field_at_bit_offset function is static in region.cc, so I cannot use
it outside of the file (you want me to use it in store.cc) without updating
that definition to extern. I am assuming you want this.
2) I am updating my
Hi, answers below. Note, do you want my resubmitted patch to be with
commit --amend, and therefore relative to "real" commits in the history,
or do you want me to chain it onto the last submission?
I have already sent to assign at gnu for the form.
I will update the commit message to call it s3
I apologize. I left a dangling space in the patch. I am guessing
that this is against whitespace policy. I had actually corrected
it but forgot to add the file to the commit. Please see the
attached.commit a9b60f36b499463b49095f28ce8053f6387c506d
Author: Brian Sobulefsky
Date: Tue Feb 9
The attached patch has been bootstrapped and regression tested. It addresses PR
analyzer/98797, which is built off the expected failures in
gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/analyzer/casts-1.c It fixes those failures and additional
manifestations. That testsuite file has been updated to no longer expect
11 matches
Mail list logo
