On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 15:15:40 +0100 "sa...@hederstierna.com" <fred...@hederstierna.com> wrote:
> Hi! > > I'm currently looking into possibilities to improve GCC for > static-code-analysis features. > Some weeks ago I proposed re-introducing -Wunreachable-code for finding dead > code: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-12/msg00385.html > > (The warning was removed in > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-11/msg00251.html) > > Though I have not got any reply yet, the patch might be wrong, but possibly > the remove_bb() call > could have some kind of 'reason' parameter to avoid false positives? > > Also I last year sent out ideas about static code analysis in: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2011-02/msg00227.html > Several GCC plugins are providing some static code analysis, and my perception is that GCC plugins are a good way of implementing them (in particular, because static analysis is often costly, and very often somehow specific). MELT http://gcc-melt.org/ is a way of extending GCC (since it is a domain specific language for that), and Pierre Vittet spent a successful Google Summer of Code to implement Talpo using MELT: http://gitorious.org/talpo Talpo is doing some static analysis, e.g. to detect that fopen is tested, etc. Regards. -- Basile STARYNKEVITCH http://starynkevitch.net/Basile/ email: basile<at>starynkevitch<dot>net mobile: +33 6 8501 2359 8, rue de la Faiencerie, 92340 Bourg La Reine, France *** opinions {are only mine, sont seulement les miennes} ***
