Re: [GSoC][Static Analyzer] First proposal draft and a few more questions/requests

Hi Dave, > Overall, it looks great. Some notes: > - maybe specify the *GCC* static analyzer you first mention it Done. > - you talk about "timeout" warnings. The analyzer already can emit a > "timeout" warning of sorts, via -Wanalyzer-too-complex, though this is > based on the complexity of th

Re: [GSoC][Static Analyzer] First proposal draft and a few more questions/requests

Hi Dave, >> >> I has looked into compiling those files with the patch some time ago; >> looking at my notes, one issue was with this on-stack buffer: >>char extra[1024]; >> declared outside the loop. Inside the loop, it gets modified in >> various ways: >>extra[0] = '\0'; >> and >>if

Re: [GSoC][Static Analyzer] First proposal draft and a few more questions/requests

Hi Dave, > On 26 Mar 2023, at 19:14, David Malcolm wrote: > > I has looked into compiling those files with the patch some time ago; > looking at my notes, one issue was with this on-stack buffer: >char extra[1024]; > declared outside the loop. Inside the loop, it gets modified in > various

Re: [GSoC][Static Analyzer] First proposal draft and a few more questions/requests

Hi Dave, (I forgot to cc the list in the last email and it was too late to unsend. Sorry for sending you the same email again.) > On 20 Mar 2023, at 23:50, David Malcolm > wrote: > > I think if you try the patch to sm.cc above, then you'll see > vari

Re: [Static Analyzer] Loop handling - False positive for malloc-sm

Hi Dave, > On 21 Mar 2023, at 00:30, David Malcolm via Gcc wrote: > > I implemented my own approach, with a "widening_svalue" subclass of > symbolic value. This is widening in the Abstract Interpretation sense, > (as opposed to the bitwise operations sense): if I see multiple values > on succes

Re: [Static Analyzer] Loop handling - False positive for malloc-sm

Hi Dave, > I implemented my own approach, with a "widening_svalue" subclass of > symbolic value. This is widening in the Abstract Interpretation sense, > (as opposed to the bitwise operations sense): if I see multiple values > on successive iterations, the widening_svalue tries to simulate that w

[GSoC][Static Analyzer] First proposal draft and a few more questions/requests

Hi Dave, Thanks for always getting back to me so promptly! I am drafting the proposal today. Here is the link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MRI1R5DaX8kM6DaqRQsEri5Mx2FvHmWv13qe1W0Bj0g/ (The proposal was first written in markdown and then copied pasted to Google Docs, so some formatting

Re: [GSoC][Static Analyzer] Ideas for proposal

Hi Dave, >> >> 4. What’s the most interesting to me are PR103533 >> (https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103533), > > Turning on taint detection by default would be a great project. It > would be good to run the integration tests: > https://github.com/davidmalcolm/gcc-analyzer-integra

Re: [GSoC][Static Analyzer] Some questions and request for a small patch to work on

Hi Dave, > On 1 Mar 2023, at 00:59, David Malcolm wrote: > > Did you get it to output your messages? > Yes, I chose to emit the warning before the supergraph or exploded graph is created (I guess this is enough, right?). I checked out from the trunk a week ago, and I checked out from the la

Re: [GSoC][Static Analyzer] Ideas for proposal

Hi Dave, > On 22 Feb 2023, at 15:11, Shengyu Huang wrote: > >> But a better place to look would probably be in our bugzilla; see the >> links on the wiki page: >> https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/StaticAnalyzer >> The "open bugs" list currently has 41 "RFE" bugs ("request for >> enhancement" i.e. idea

Re: [GSoC][Static Analyzer] Some questions and request for a small patch to work on

Hi Dave, Do you want me to follow the steps 7-10 (https://gcc-newbies-guide.readthedocs.io/en/latest/how-to-improve-the-location-of-a-diagnostic.html) or tell you where I add the code simply? Basically, I added warning_at (DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION (node->decl), 0, "hello world, I’m compiling %qE",

Re: [GSoC][Static Analyzer] Some questions and request for a small patch to work on

Hi Iain, > On 27 Feb 2023, at 14:45, Iain Sandoe wrote: > > Please file an issue against the branch on github (since this is a > development branch it’s not appropriate to use the GCC bugzilla yet). The same error occurred for both the development branch and the gcc-12-2 branch. Should I only

Re: [GSoC][Static Analyzer] Some questions and request for a small patch to work on

Hi Iain, Sorry for the late reply. I just built gcc-12-2 on my machine with bootstrap and it worked. However, maybe due to some missing configuration, building without bootstrap does not work on my machine (development branch or gcc-12-2). Specifically, my configuration is as follows. ``` $HO

Re: [GSoC][Static Analyzer] Some questions and request for a small patch to work on

Hi Dave, > But a better place to look would probably be in our bugzilla; see the > links on the wiki page: > https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/StaticAnalyzer > The "open bugs" list currently has 41 "RFE" bugs ("request for > enhancement" i.e. ideas for new features), some of which might make > suitable

[GSoC][Static Analyzer] Some questions and request for a small patch to work on

Dear all, I want to work on the Static Analyzer project and just started to read the documentation these days, but what’s mentioned in 27.1.6 in the internal document (https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Analyzer-Internals.html#Analyzer-Internals) seems outdated or not detailed enough. For e

[GSoC] Help needed for building on aarch64-apple-darwin22.1.0

Dear all, After following the instructions here (https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/InstallingGCC) and here (https://gcc.gnu.org/install/index.html), the `make` step simply fails with “*** Configuration aarch64-apple-darwin22.1.0 not supported”. I found this issue on Bugzilla (https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill