Re: Static code checker research worth investigating (Communications of the ACM, 03/2016, Vol. 59, No. 03, p. 99) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Greg Stark
Subject Re: Static code checker research worth investigating (Communications of the ACM, 03/2016, Vol. 59, No. 03, p. 99)
Date
Msg-id CAM-w4HMuobcrzGCoc5URKdEzyT-J1c4C-sJb8hm2MRnezuWSuQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Static code checker research worth investigating (Communications of the ACM, 03/2016, Vol. 59, No. 03, p. 99)  (Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>)
Responses Re: Static code checker research worth investigating (Communications of the ACM, 03/2016, Vol. 59, No. 03, p. 99)
List 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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Greg Stark
Date:
Subject: Re: Static code checker research worth investigating (Communications of the ACM, 03/2016, Vol. 59, No. 03, p. 99)
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: silent data loss with ext4 / all current versions