On Mon, 2022-01-24 at 01:41 +0530, Mir Immad wrote:
> Hi, sir.
>
> I've been trying to understand the static analyzer's code. I spent most
> of
> my time learning the state machine's API. I learned how state machine's
> on_stmt is supposed to "recognize" specific functions and how
> on_transition
On Mon, 2022-01-24 at 19:49 +0530, Ankur Saini wrote:
> The following can be a possible example of a case where the analyzer
> fails
> to understand POSIX file-descriptor API.
>
> - - -
> #include
> #include
>
> void test()
> {
> int fd;
> fd = open("foo.txt", O_RDONLY | O_CREAT);
> }
>
On Sat, 2022-01-29 at 20:22 +0530, Mir Immad wrote:
> Thank you for the detailed information.
>
> I've been looking into the integer posix file descriptor APIs and I
> decided to write proof-of-concept checker for them. (not caring
> about
> errno). The checker tracks the fd returned by open(),
On Sun, 2022-01-30 at 01:09 +, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Jan 2022, 20:25 Søren Holm via Gcc, wrote:
>
> > Hi
> >
> > I believe I have found some kind of bug in GCC. The target is a
> > cortex-m7 CPU. I do not have an isolated test software so I'm
> > thinking
> > of bisecti
On Mon, 2022-02-07 at 18:08 +0100, FX wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> > Thanks. I extended your patch as follows, which works successfully
> > for
> > me on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
> >
> > Does the following look OK for the analyzer asm failures on
> > x86_64-apple-darwin?
>
> Sorry for the late reply… yes
On Sun, 2022-02-13 at 21:16 +0530, Mir Immad wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I wanted some clarification on bifurcating the exploded graph at call
> to
> open().
> Should the analyzer warn for code like this "when open fails" (like
> strchr
> does when 'strchr' returns NULL)
>
> int fd = open("NOFILE", O_RDONL
On Sun, 2022-02-13 at 17:57 -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Sun, 2022-02-13 at 21:16 +0530, Mir Immad wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I wanted some clarification on bifurcating the exploded graph at
> > call
> > to
> > open().
> > Should the analyzer warn for code like this "when open fails" (like
> > str
[CCing Mark in the hopes of insight from the valgrind side of things]
There is a false positive from -Wanalyzer-use-of-uninitialized-value on
gcc.dg/analyzer/pr102692.c here:
‘fix_overlays_before’: events 1-3
|
| 75 | while (tail
| |
| 76 | && (
On Mon, 2022-02-14 at 09:26 -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
>
>
> On 2/14/2022 8:57 AM, David Malcolm via Gcc wrote:
> > [CCing Mark in the hopes of insight from the valgrind side of things]
> >
> > There is a false positive from -Wanalyzer-use-of-uninitialized-value
> >
On Mon, 2022-02-14 at 17:57 +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> On Mon, 2022-02-14 at 10:57 -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> > [CCing Mark in the hopes of insight from the valgrind side of
> > things]
>
> Adding Julian to CC so he can correct me if I say something silly.
>
> > There is a fa
On Tue, 2022-02-15 at 12:55 +, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 at 12:34, Baruch Burstein via Gcc <
> gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I hope it is not inappropriate to call attention to a specific bug.
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla//show_bug.cgi?id=85487.
>
On Tue, 2022-02-15 at 14:28 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 2:00 PM Julian Seward
> wrote:
> >
> > Sorry for the delayed response. I've been paging this all back in.
> >
> > I first saw this problem when memcheck-ing Firefox as compiled by
> > Clang, some
> > years back.
On Sun, 2022-02-20 at 12:19 +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> Hi David!
>
> On 2022-01-07T12:41:17-0500, David Malcolm via Fortran <
> fort...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> > I'd like to (again) mentor a project relating to the GCC static
> > analyzer:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/DavidMalcolm/StaticAnal
We gained __attribute__ ((access, ...)) in GCC 10:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Common-Function-Attributes.html
which identifies one of the pointer/reference arguments of a function
as being accessed according to an access-mode: read_only, read_write,
write_only, or none.
We also have __at
On Wed, 2022-03-09 at 13:30 -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 1:25 PM David Malcolm via Gcc
> wrote:
> >
> > We gained __attribute__ ((access, ...)) in GCC 10:
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Common-Function-Attributes.html
> >
On Mon, 2022-03-14 at 16:18 -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 3/9/22 14:57, David Malcolm via Gcc wrote:
> > On Wed, 2022-03-09 at 13:30 -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 1:25 PM David Malcolm via Gcc
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > &
On Wed, 2022-03-23 at 17:52 +0100, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> On 23/03/2022 17:31, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote:
> >
> > The concern is that the constraints implied by atttributes access
> > and
> > nonnull are independent of each other. I would suggest to document
> > that without talking ab
On Sun, 2022-04-03 at 17:56 +0200, Tim Lange wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> Hi David,
Hi Tim
>
> I'm interested in extending the static analysis pass as a GSoC
> project.
Excellent.
> Short introduction of me: I'm Tim, currently doing my master in
> computer science with focus on IT security at TU D
On Fri, 2022-03-25 at 14:38 -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 3/25/22 12:45, David Malcolm wrote:
> > On Wed, 2022-03-23 at 17:52 +0100, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> > > On 23/03/2022 17:31, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The concern is that the constraints implied by atttributes
>
On Mon, 2022-04-04 at 21:46 +0530, Mir Immad wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> Sorry for such late reply. I've been busy with classes and exams.
>
> As the contributor applications are opening, I would like to put
> forward a
> proposal for a medium project for extending the static analyzer to work
> with P
On Fri, 2022-04-15 at 19:58 +0530, Mir Immad wrote:
> I've submitted a proposal for extending the static analyzer to support
> posix fd APIs on GSoC website. Here is the Google docs link (gdocs
> <
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/188zxPUsuYcF-uGVYL_G1s2RVtHhJSZeQ4sha40H7374/edit?usp=sharing
>
On Fri, 2022-04-15 at 22:36 +0530, Mir Immad wrote:
> I've updated the link on the repo --
> https://mirimmad.github.io/zeta-lang.
>
> > You don't give many specifics in your personal decription. One thing
> > I'm not seeing is a sense of how proficient you are in various
> > programming langua
On Fri, 2022-04-15 at 22:27 +0300, Φώτης Βαλασιάδης via Gcc wrote:
> Hello all,
Hi!
>
> I am interested in said project, and I'd like to ask.
>
> Is said project limited to providing static analysis for heap
> allocations
> and file handles? To be clear I am asking whether or not there are
> g
The generated HTML for my GCC Newbies Guide is now at:
https://gcc-newbies-guide.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
as I seem to be unable to update the dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org
subdomain where I used to upload the HTML. Please update any links you
see to it to point to the new location.
I've also refr
On Wed, 2022-05-25 at 10:25 +0530, RICHU NORMAN wrote:
> Hi,
> I am a beginner in gcc. I am trying to add an instruction to riscv-
> gcc.It
> would be helpful could help with a few tips .
Hi Richu - welcome to GCC development.
FWIW I've written a guide for new GCC contributors which you might fin
On Wed, 2022-05-25 at 06:44 -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Wed, 2022-05-25 at 10:25 +0530, RICHU NORMAN wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I am a beginner in gcc. I am trying to add an instruction to riscv-
> > gcc.It
> > would be helpful could help with a few tips .
>
> Hi Richu - welcome to GCC development.
>
On Wed, 2022-05-25 at 16:32 +0530, RICHU NORMAN wrote:
> This is great, thank you so much!
You're welcome.
> I am also looking for support regarding adding instructions for the
> target
> machine.
That's something I've not done (my expertise is mostly in the frontends
and diagnostics).
With tha
On Wed, 2022-06-01 at 23:22 +0530, Mir Immad wrote:
> HI everyone,
>
> I'm Immad Mir -- one of the GSoC students this year. I'll be working on
> adding static analysis support for POSIX file description APIs this
> summer.
Welcome Immad - I'm looking forward to helping you on this project.
For r
On Thu, 2022-06-09 at 11:04 +0200, Tim Lange wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> my name is Tim and I'm also working on the static analyzer this summer.
Hi Tim - and welcome to GCC development.
> Some of you might already noticed my nooby questions in the IRC ;).
> Specifically, I'll be working on extendi
On Thu, 2022-06-09 at 16:49 +0200, Tim Lange wrote:
>
> > On Mi, Jun 8 2022 at 11:12:52 -0400, David Malcolm
> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2022-06-08 at 01:42 +0200, Tim Lange wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Dave,
Hi Tim; various responses inline below...
> > >
> > > I did spent some time to think about
I've written a large new chunk of documentation for my GCC newbies
guide, called "Diving into GCC internals", which can be seen at:
https://gcc-newbies-guide.readthedocs.io/en/latest/diving-into-gcc-internals.html
Hope this is helpful; please let me know if you see any mistakes, or if
there's roo
On Sat, 2022-06-11 at 02:35 +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > Hope this is helpful; please let me know if you see any mistakes,
> > or if
> > there's room for improvement
>
> Nice work! In the "inside cc1" chapter, I think that IR is usually
> meant for
> "Intermediate Representation" rather than
On Sun, 2022-06-12 at 20:27 +0200, Tim Lange wrote:
>
>
> On Do, Jun 9 2022 at 13:40:06 -0400, David Malcolm
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2022-06-09 at 16:49 +0200, Tim Lange wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mi, Jun 8 2022 at 11:12:52 -0400, David Malcolm
> > > wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 2022-06-08 at 01:4
On Wed, 2022-06-01 at 14:50 -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Wed, 2022-06-01 at 23:22 +0530, Mir Immad wrote:
> > HI everyone,
> >
> > I'm Immad Mir -- one of the GSoC students this year. I'll be working
> > on
> > adding static analysis support for POSIX file description APIs this
> > summer.
>
On Fri, 2022-06-17 at 17:54 +0200, Tim Lange wrote:
> Hi everyone,
Hi Tim.
Thanks for the patch.
Various comments inline below, throughout...
>
> tracked in PR105900 [0], I'd like to add support for a new warning on
> dubious allocation sizes. The new checker emits a warning when the
> alloca
On Fri, 2022-06-17 at 21:23 +0200, Tim Lange wrote:
>
>
> On Fr, Jun 17 2022 at 22:45:42 +0530, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 at 21:25, Tim Lange wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi everyone,
> > Hi Tim,
> > Thanks for posting the POC patch!
> > Just a couple of comments (inline)
>
On Fri, 2022-06-17 at 22:23 +0200, Tim Lange wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 01:48:09PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> > On Fri, 2022-06-17 at 17:54 +0200, Tim Lange wrote:
[...snip...]
> >
>
> I have resent the patch using git send-email as a reply to my original
> message.
> The new message
Hi Immad, thanks for this patch.
Overall, looks like you're making good progress.
Various notes and nitpicks inline below, throughout...
On Tue, 2022-06-21 at 22:00 +0530, Mir Immad wrote:
[...snip...]
>
> diff --git a/gcc/analyzer/analyzer.opt b/gcc/analyzer/analyzer.opt
> index 23dfc797cea.
On Tue, 2022-06-21 at 18:50 +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2022, David Malcolm via Gcc wrote:
>
> > So ultimately that's something we want to fix, though exactly how,
> > I'm
> > not quite sure; we presumably want to look up the target's
>
On Tue, 2022-06-21 at 22:00 +0200, Tim Lange wrote:
> On Sat Jun 18, 2022 at 12:13 AM CEST, David Malcolm wrote:
> > On Fri, 2022-06-17 at 22:23 +0200, Tim Lange wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 01:48:09PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2022-06-17 at 17:54 +0200, Tim Lange wrote:
>
On Wed, 2022-06-22 at 16:57 +0200, Tim Lange wrote:
> The checker reaches region-model.cc#3083 in my patch with the
> impl_region_model_context
> on the 'after' node of create_buffer() but then discards the warning
> inside
> impl_region_model_context::warn because m_stmt is null. Even if m_stmt
On Fri, 2022-06-24 at 00:00 +0530, Mir Immad wrote:
Thanks for the updated patch.
This is close to being ready.
One big issue is the target hook idea for isolating the target's
definition of the O_* flags as per Joseph's suggestion here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2022-June/238961.html
On Thu, 2022-06-23 at 23:58 +0530, Mir Immad wrote:
> Hi Dave,
> Thanks for the suggestions,
>
> I changed most of the things that you suggested, however reporting
> for
> warnings like close of known invalid fd was problematic:
>
> consider the following code:
>
> if (fd >= 0)
> { write (fd,..
Thanks for the updated patch.
Various comments inline below.
Sorry if this seems nitpicky in places.
I think the patch is nearly ready; please write a ChangeLog entry for
the next one (none of my proposed changes are going to affect what the
ChangeLog will look like, apart from new test case fil
Thanks for the updated patch.
Various notes below; mostly nits, but I realized there's a logic error
in fd_state_machine::on_condition that I hadn't spotted before...
[...snip...]
> diff --git a/gcc/analyzer/ChangeLog b/gcc/analyzer/ChangeLog
> index 53b3ffb487b..d30e94f2f62 100644
> --- a/gcc/a
On Wed, 2022-06-29 at 17:39 +0200, Tim Lange wrote:
> Hi,
Thanks for the updated patch.
Overall, looks nearly ready; various nits inline below, throughout...
>
> I've addressed most of the points from the review.
> * The allocation size warning warns whenever region_model::get_capacity
> retu
On our wiki I've renamed:
https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/DavidMalcolm/StaticAnalyzer
to:
https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/StaticAnalyzer
since it's not just me working on the analyzer.
I've updated all the internal links within the wiki accordingly; please
update any external links you see.
Thanks
Dave
On Fri, 2022-07-01 at 00:11 +0200, Tim Lange wrote:
> Hi,
>
> here's the updated patch that should address all the comments from the
> v2.
>
> - Tim
>
> This patch adds an checker that warns about code paths in which a
> buffer is
> assigned to a incompatible type, i.e. when the allocated buffer
On Sat, 2022-07-02 at 19:34 +0530, Mir Immad wrote:
> From 62b7b7736975172f03b30783436fbc9217324223 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: mir
> Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2022 15:04:37 +0530
> Subject: [PATCH] analyzer: implement five new warnings for misuse of
> POSIX
> file descriptor APIs [PR106003].
>
> Th
On Sun, 2022-07-03 at 14:36 +0530, Mir Immad wrote:
> Thank you.
> I've committed the patch, and it is covered by the Developer
> Certificate
> of Origin (DCO).
Excellent - thanks.
Congratulations on getting your first patch into GCC!
Dave
On Sun, 2022-07-03 at 02:46 +, Jay K wrote:
> > check for double "close" of a FD (CWE-1341).
> > check for read/write of a closed file descriptor
>
> These sound good but kinda non general or incomplete to me.
> I mean, isn't the "right" thing, to disallow passing
> a closed fd to "al
On Sun, 2022-06-26 at 14:06 +0100, Iain Sandoe wrote:
> Hi Dave, folks,
>
> It seems to me that it is plausible that one could use the JIT in a
> heterogenous system, e.g. an x86_64-linux-host with some kind of co-
> processor which is supported as a GCC target (and therefore can be
> loaded with
std::unique_ptr is C++11, and I'd like to use it in the gcc/analyzer
subdirectory, at least. The following patch eliminates a bunch of
"takes ownership" comments and manual "delete" invocations in favor
of simply using std::unique_ptr.
The problem is that the patch makes use of std::make_unique,
On Mon, 2022-07-11 at 11:56 +0100, Pedro Alves wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On 2022-07-08 9:46 p.m., David Malcolm via Gcc wrote:
> > - pending_diagnostic *d,
> > +
> > std::unique_ptr d,
>
> I see that y
On Tue, 2022-07-12 at 23:03 +0530, Mir Immad wrote:
[cross-posting to the glibc development mailing list; updating subject
accordingly]
> Hi everyone,
Hi Immad, GCC developers, and glibc developers.
glibc developers: Immad is a GSoC student, he's been adding checks for
file-descriptor-based API
On Tue, 2022-07-12 at 18:16 -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Tue, 2022-07-12 at 23:03 +0530, Mir Immad wrote:
>
> [cross-posting to the glibc development mailing list; updating subject
> accordingly]
>
> > Hi everyone,
>
> Hi Immad, GCC developers, and glibc developers.
>
> glibc developers: Im
On Wed, 2022-07-13 at 09:37 +0100, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> The 07/12/2022 18:25, David Malcolm via Libc-alpha wrote:
> > On Tue, 2022-07-12 at 18:16 -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2022-07-12 at 23:03 +0530, Mir Immad wrote:
> > > GCC's attribute syntax here:
> > > https://gcc.gnu.org/on
On Wed, 2022-07-13 at 14:05 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Szabolcs Nagy via Gcc:
[adding Immad back to the CC list]
>
> > to be honest, i'd expect interesting fd bugs to be
> > dynamic and not easy to statically analyze.
> > the use-after-unchecked-open maybe useful. i would
> > not expect th
On Wed, 2022-07-13 at 16:01 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * David Malcolm:
>
> > On Wed, 2022-07-13 at 14:05 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > > * Szabolcs Nagy via Gcc:
> >
> > [adding Immad back to the CC list]
> >
> > >
> > > > to be honest, i'd expect interesting fd bugs to be
> > > > dynam
On Wed, 2022-07-13 at 22:26 +0530, Mir Immad wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Reading through the thread, I feel the following attributes look good
> and
> similar to what I've done:
>
> __attribute__ ((fd_arg(N)))
> __attribute__ ((fd_arg_read(N)))
> __attribute__ ((fd_arg_write(N)))
>
> I believe how
On Thu, 2022-07-14 at 09:30 +0100, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> The 07/13/2022 12:55, David Malcolm wrote:
> > On Wed, 2022-07-13 at 16:01 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > > * David Malcolm:
> > GCC trunk's -fanalyzer implements the new warnings via a state
> > machine
> > for file-descriptor values; it
On Thu, 2022-06-23 at 19:20 -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Fri, 2022-06-24 at 00:00 +0530, Mir Immad wrote:
[...snip...]
> > +
> > +enum access_mode
> > +fd_state_machine::get_access_mode_from_flag (int flag) const
> > +{
> > + /* FIXME: this code assumes the access modes on the host and
> > +
On Mon, 2022-07-18 at 20:35 +0100, lkcl via Gcc wrote:
> (apologies top-posting, strange mobile mailer). i would expect in that
> case that the Rust Foundation to work closely with Certification Mark
> Licensees, and to come to an accommodation, defining a subset if
> necessary.
>
> if the gcc dev
Is there documentation on setting up text editors to work with our
coding style? A lot of the next generation of developers aren't using
vi or emacs; they's using VS Code, CLion, and other editors. Does
anyone have docs on e.g. how to set up VS Code, CLion, etc (IntelliJ ?)
to work well on GCC's
On Tue, 2022-10-04 at 13:29 +0100, Philip Herron wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> As the cut-off for merging is coming up in November, quite a few of
> our patches have not been reviewed yet.
>
> There are a few main issues that have been raised so far, and we are
> fixing those at the moment in prepara
On Mon, 2022-10-10 at 16:21 -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 10/4/22 11:11, Ben Boeckel wrote:
> > This patch adds initial support for ISO C++'s [P1689R5][], a format
> > for
> > describing C++ module requirements and provisions based on the
> > source
> > code. This is required because compiling C
On Thu, 2022-10-27 at 19:16 -0400, Ben Boeckel wrote:
> Unicode does not support such values because they are unrepresentable
> in
> UTF-16.
Wikipedia pointed me to RFC 3629, which was when UTF-8 introduced this
restriction, whereas libcpp was implementing the higher upper limit
from the earlier,
On Thu, 2022-10-27 at 19:16 -0400, Ben Boeckel wrote:
> This simplifies the interface for other UTF-8 validity detections
> when a
> simple "yes" or "no" answer is sufficient.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ben Boeckel
> ---
> libcpp/ChangeLog | 6 ++
> libcpp/charset.cc | 18 ++
> lib
On Mon, 2022-10-17 at 15:28 +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> Hello.
>
> Based on the very positive feedback I was given at the Cauldron
> Sphinx Documentation BoF,
> I'm planning migrating the documentation on 9th November. There are
> still some minor comments
> from Sandra when it comes to the PDF o
[Fixing typo in the Subject ("git" -> "jit" ); CCing jit mailing list]
On Fri, 2022-11-11 at 17:16 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 at 13:51, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 at 13:33, LIU Hao wrote:
> > >
> > > 在 2022-11-07 20:57, Jonathan Wakely 写道:
> > > > I
On Wed, 2022-11-23 at 20:49 -0500, Gavin Ray via Gcc wrote:
> Hey all, just a few questions about the fantastic GCC Static
> Analyzer:
Hi!
>
> - It's stated that support for C++ vs C is very limited. Does this
> apply if
> you're writing C++ that is very similar-looking to C and uses few
> of
On Sat, 2022-11-26 at 17:47 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Nov 2022, 15:48 Gavin Ray, wrote:
>
> > I was using if (fd != -1) and was still getting the warning which
> > confused
> > me
> > My suggestion was maybe to add the exact condition the fd analyzer
> > is
> > looking for to the
On Mon, 2022-11-28 at 15:28 -0600, Robert Dubner wrote:
> I am part of a team working on a COBOL front end for GCC.
>
> By reverse engineering other front ends, I learned, some months ago,
> how
> to create a function_decl GENERIC node that is the root of a GENERIC
> tree
> describing an entire fu
On Tue, 2022-12-13 at 20:15 +0100, Alejandro Colomar via Gcc wrote:
>
>
> On 12/13/22 20:08, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > For the following program:
> >
> >
> > $ cat buf.c
> > #include
> >
> > int main(void)
> > {
> > char *p, buf[5];
> >
> >
On Wed, 2023-02-08 at 10:57 +0200, Kristiyan Stoimenov via Gcc wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I would like to ask whether I could be part of the upcoming GSoC. I
> have
> been wanting to contribute to the project for some time now and I
> think
> that this would be a nice opportunity for that.
>
> I have lo
On Thu, 2023-02-16 at 15:35 +0100, Alejandro Colomar via Gcc wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I was preparing an example program of a use-after-realloc bug,
> when I found that GCC doesn't warn in a case where it should.
>
>
> alx@debian:~/tmp$ cat realloc.c
> #include
> #include
> #include
> #include
> #in
On Thu, 2023-02-16 at 22:48 -0500, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> On 2023-02-16 10:15, David Malcolm via Gcc wrote:
> > I'm not convinced that it's useful to the end-user to warn about
> > the
> > "use of q itself" case.
>
> FWIW, -Wuse-after-free
On Tue, 2023-02-21 at 22:26 +0100, Shengyu Huang via Gcc wrote:
> Dear all,
Hi Shengyu, and welcome.
>
> I want to work on the Static Analyzer project and just started to
> read the documentation these days,
Excellent! I'm the author/maintainer of the analyzer, so I would
mentor any such GSoC
On Wed, 2023-02-22 at 15:11 +0100, Shengyu Huang wrote:
> 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
> > enh
On Tue, 2023-02-28 at 10:18 +0100, Shengyu Huang wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> Do you want me to follow the steps 7-10
> (https://gcc-newbies-guide.readthedocs.io/en/latest/how-to-improve-th
> e-location-of-a-diagnostic.html) or tell you where I add the code
> simply? Basically, I added
>
> warning_at (D
On Tue, 2023-02-28 at 15:46 +0100, Shengyu Huang wrote:
> 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
> > > Th
On Wed, 2023-03-01 at 12:16 +0100, Shengyu Huang wrote:
> 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
On Sat, 2023-03-04 at 08:11 +0530, Rishi Raj via Gcc wrote:
> Hi everyone,
Hi, and welcome!
>
> My name is Rishi Raj, and I am a third-year undergraduate studying
> Computer
> Science and Engineering at the Indian Institute of Technology
> Kharagpur in
> India. I wish to participate in this year
On Sat, 2023-03-04 at 20:56 +0530, Priyabrata Mondal via Gcc wrote:
> Respected sir,
> I am Priyabrata Mondal, an M.tech student in Electric
> Transportation at the Indian Institute of Technology(IIT), Mandi. I
> want to
> participate in Google Summer of Code 2023 by contributing to th
On Fri, 2023-03-03 at 19:28 +0100, Jan Hubicka via Gcc wrote:
> Hello,
> > Hi! I've been interested in compiler development for a while, and
> > would love to
> > work with any of you as part of GSoC, or even just as a side-
> > project on my own.
> >
> > I'm an 18 year-old student going into univ
On Sun, 2023-03-12 at 23:20 +0100, Shengyu Huang wrote:
> 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
On Wed, 2023-03-15 at 16:24 +0100, Pierrick Philippe wrote:
> Hi everyone,
Hi Pierrick
>
> I have some question regarding the analyzer.
> I'm currently working on an fully out-of-tree static analyzer plugin.
> I started development on commit tagged as /basepoints/gcc-13/, but
> recently moved m
On Wed, 2023-03-15 at 17:35 +0100, Benjamin Priour via Gcc wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm Benjamin and I have been looking around the mail list and the
> code base
> since last December, where I had to write a simple Deca compiler
> within a
> month as a team. Next paragraph is me introducing myself -ranting
>
On Thu, 2023-03-16 at 09:54 +0100, Pierrick Philippe wrote:
> On 15/03/2023 17:26, David Malcolm wrote:
> > On Wed, 2023-03-15 at 16:24 +0100, Pierrick Philippe wrote:
[...snip...]
> >
> >
> > An ana::svalue is a pattern of bits (possibly symbolic, such as
> > "the
> > constant 42" or "the init
On Mon, 2023-03-20 at 22:36 +0530, Rishi Raj wrote:
> I am sorry for the previous messed-up reply :(. I was trying to reply
> back
> to my previous mail thread but mistakenly replied to the entire
> digest::((.
> Thanks, David and Martin, for the heads up, and I am sorry for the
> late
> reply due
On Mon, 2023-03-20 at 18:28 +0100, Shengyu Huang wrote:
> 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
On Mon, 2023-03-20 at 13:28 +0100, Pierrick Philippe wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm still playing around with the analyzer, and wanted to have a look
> at
> loop handling.
> I'm using a build from /trunk/ branch (/20230309/).
>
> Here is my analyzed code:
>
> '''
> 1| #include
> 2| int main(voi
On Tue, 2023-03-21 at 09:21 +0100, Pierrick Philippe wrote:
> On 21/03/2023 00:30, David Malcolm wrote:
> > On Mon, 2023-03-20 at 13:28 +0100, Pierrick Philippe wrote:
> > > Hi everyone,
> > >
> > > I'm still playing around with the analyzer, and wanted to have a
> > > look
> > > at
> > > loop han
On Tue, 2023-03-21 at 11:01 +0100, Shengyu Huang wrote:
> 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
> > value
On Sat, 2023-03-25 at 15:38 -0400, Eric Feng via Gcc wrote:
> Hi GCC community,
>
> For GSoC, I am extremely interested in working on the selected
> project
> idea with respect to extending the static analysis pass. In
> particular, porting gcc-python-plugin's cpychecker to a plugin for
> GCC
> -f
On Sun, 2023-03-26 at 18:03 +0200, Shengyu Huang wrote:
> 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
> > mailto:dmalc...@redhat.com>> wrote:
> >
> > I think if
On Tue, 2023-03-28 at 08:08 -0400, Eric Feng wrote:
> My apologies. Forgot to CC the mailing list in my previous e-mail.
> Original reply below:
>
> ___
>
>
> Hi David,
>
> Thank you for your feedback!
>
> >
[...snip...]
> >
>
> > > Error-handling checking: Various checks for common er
On Wed, 2023-03-29 at 15:20 +0200, Alejandro Colomar via Gcc wrote:
> Hi!
>
> With both GCC 12.2.0 (Debian), and GCC 13.0.1 20230315 (built from
> source),
> I can reproduce these false positives.
>
> The reproducer program is a small program that checks a password
> against a
> hardcoded string,
On Thu, 2023-03-30 at 00:50 +0200, Benjamin Priour wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> I've been playing around with sm-malloc on C++ samples.
Note that the analyzer doesn't properly work yet on C++; see:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/showdependencytree.cgi?id=97110
I'm hoping to address much of this in GCC
On Sat, 2023-04-01 at 01:33 +0200, Benjamin Priour wrote:
> Hi David,
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 2:04 AM David Malcolm
> wrote:
> > I think working on the C++ enablement prerequisites in the analyzer
> > would make more sense. I'd planned to do this myself for GCC 14,
> > but
> > there are p
101 - 200 of 295 matches
Mail list logo
