On Wed, 2020-01-08 at 04:02 -0500, David Malcolm wrote: > Needs review. > > Re the v1 version of this patch Jeff asked in: > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-12/msg00506.html > > This goes well beyond what we were originally targeting -- which begs > > the question, what's the state of the other checkers in here? > Jeff: I thought I had responded to that by discussing the other sm-*.cc > files but I now realize you may have been referring to the warnings > other than double-free within sm-malloc.cc. The warnings within > sm-malloc.cc are in pretty good shape, as is the warning in > sm-signal.cc. Everything else is a lot less mature. (If we had > to pick a subset of warnings for the initial release, I'd pick > everything in sm-malloc.cc plus sm-signal.cc) > > Changed in v5: > - update ChangeLog path > - updated copyright years to include 2020 > > Changed in v4: > - Remove include of gcc-plugin.h, reworking includes accordingly. > - Wrap everything in #if ENABLE_ANALYZER > - Remove /// comment lines > - Rework on_leak vfunc: > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-11/msg02028.html > - Rework for changes to is_named_call_p, resolving function pointers: > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-12/msg00178.html > - Support the "__builtin_"-prefixed spellings of malloc, calloc and free > - Add malloc.dot > > This patch adds a state machine checker for malloc/free. > > gcc/analyzer/ChangeLog: > * sm-malloc.cc: New file. > * sm-malloc.dot: New file. I don't immediately recall if I was referring to the other checkers in the total patchkit or those within sm-malloc.
I think my original point about someone using this as a template for other checkers still stands -- probably because sm-malloc appears to be the most complete/complex. Of course that's what I told you to focus on, so that's not a real surprise. It's OK for the trunk IMHO. jeff
