Hi David, May I kindly ping you on that? Or anyone with knowledge of the static analyzer?
Thanks, FX > Le 23 déc. 2021 à 22:49, FX <fxcoud...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > Hi David, hi everone, > > I’m trying to understand how best to fix or silence the several failures in > gcc.dg/analyzer that occur on x86_64-apple-darwin. Some of them, according to > gcc-testresults, also occur on other non-Linux targets. See for example, the > test results at > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-testresults/2021-December/743901.html > > ## gcc.dg/analyzer/torture/asm-x86-linux-*.c > > Are these supposed to be run only on Linux (as the name implies)? Four of > them fail on x86_64-apple-darwin, because they use assembly that is not > supported: > > FAIL: gcc.dg/analyzer/torture/asm-x86-linux-cpuid-paravirt-1.c > FAIL: gcc.dg/analyzer/torture/asm-x86-linux-cpuid-paravirt-2.c > FAIL: gcc.dg/analyzer/torture/asm-x86-linux-rdmsr-paravirt.c > FAIL: gcc.dg/analyzer/torture/asm-x86-linux-wfx_get_ps_timeout-full.c > > Should they be restricted to Linux targets? There is another one that has the > same error, as well, although it doesn’t have linux in the name: > > FAIL: gcc.dg/analyzer/asm-x86-lp64-1.c > > > ## Builtin-related failures > > Those four cases fail: > > gcc.dg/analyzer/data-model-1.c > > gcc.dg/analyzer/pr103526.c > gcc.dg/analyzer/taint-size-1.c > gcc.dg/analyzer/write-to-string-literal-1.c > > but pass if the function calls (memset and memcpy) are replaced by the > built-in variant (__builtin_memset and __builtin_memcpy). The reason for that > is the darwin headers, in <secure/_string.h> (included from <string.h>) does > this: > > #if __has_builtin(__builtin___memcpy_chk) || defined(__GNUC__) > #undef memcpy > /* void *memcpy(void *dst, const void *src, size_t n) */ > #define memcpy(dest, ...) \ > __builtin___memcpy_chk (dest, __VA_ARGS__, __darwin_obsz0 > (dest)) > #endif > > where __darwin_obsz0 is defined thusly: > > #define __darwin_obsz0(object) __builtin_object_size (object, 0) > > > Does the analyzer not handle the _chk builtin variants? Should it? > I’m happy to investigate more, but I’m not sure what to do. > > > Best, > FX
