Static code checker research worth investigating (Communications of the ACM, 03/2016, Vol. 59, No. 03, p. 99)
Interesting article in latest issue of subject titled:
"A Differential Approach to Undefined Behavior Detection"
which may describe procedures not used in other static analysis programs.
Article references the authors' website here:
http://css.csail.mit.edu/stack
which contains more info links and a link to the software on github here:
Best regards,
-Tom
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Hi,
On Sat, 2016-03-05 at 06:24 -0600, Tom Browder wrote:
Interesting article in latest issue of subject titled:
"A Differential Approach to Undefined Behavior Detection"
which may describe procedures not used in other static analysis programs.
Article references the authors' website here:
http://css.csail.mit.edu/stack
which contains more info links and a link to the software on github here:
Best regards,
AFAIK this is not an entirely new tool - it was published a few years
back (2013?) along with a paper that also mentioned a few issues in
PostgreSQL. And it was dealt with, see for example this thread
/messages/by-id/20130715215950.GA4165@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org
Or is this something new?
regards
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 6:41 AM, Tomas Vondra
<tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
On Sat, 2016-03-05 at 06:24 -0600, Tom Browder wrote:
Interesting article in latest issue of subject titled:
"A Differential Approach to Undefined Behavior Detection"
...
AFAIK this is not an entirely new tool - it was published a few years
back (2013?) along with a paper that also mentioned a few issues in
PostgreSQL. And it was dealt with, see for example this thread/messages/by-id/20130715215950.GA4165@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org
Or is this something new?
No, and I think the article mentions that at least one bug was found
in the postgresql code.
Sorry for the false alarm.
Best regards,
-Tom
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 12:41 PM, Tomas Vondra
<tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
And it was dealt with
Well. Not dealt with yet. I think it's more or less clear how to
tackle it using macros and builtins now but there's a lot of drudgery
work to actually rewrite all the checks. I have the reports from Xi
Wang's tool saved if anyone else wants to take it up. I would say it's
on my TODO list but that's more of an abstract concept than an actual
list.
--
greg
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu> wrote:
Well. Not dealt with yet. I think it's more or less clear how to
tackle it using macros and builtins now but there's a lot of drudgery
work to actually rewrite all the checks. I have the reports from Xi
Wang's tool saved if anyone else wants to take it up. I would say it's
on my TODO list but that's more of an abstract concept than an actual
list.
[Removing all the other xposted lists -- don't do that!]
And fwiw the reason it's not an urgent issue for Postgres is because
we build with -fwrapv, essentially asking the compiler for a C
language that offers more guarantees than the standard (but matches
traditional C environments). So there isn't an active bug on Postgres
with GCC (or I think Clang) but may be with other compilers if they
don't have that option.
--
greg
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 7:03 AM, Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu> wrote:
On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu> wrote:
Well. Not dealt with yet. I think it's more or less clear how to
tackle it using macros and builtins now but there's a lot of drudgery
work to actually rewrite all the checks. I have the reports from Xi
Wang's tool saved if anyone else wants to take it up. I would say it's
on my TODO list but that's more of an abstract concept than an actual
list.[Removing all the other xposted lists -- don't do that!]
Okay, sorry. I thought since the reply was pg-specific it would cut down noise.
-Tom
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Tom Browder <tom.browder@gmail.com> wrote:
[Removing all the other xposted lists -- don't do that!]
Okay, sorry. I thought since the reply was pg-specific it would cut down noise.
I'm sorry I was unclear. I meant, I was removing all the others from
my reply and was saying not to cross-post like that in the first
place. I see you removed them in your response too which is good but I
missed that and responded to the previous message.
--
greg
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers