From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15831 invoked by alias); 23 Jan 2007 00:46:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 15796 invoked by uid 48); 23 Jan 2007 00:45:52 -0000 Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 00:46:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20070123004552.15795.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug c/30475] assert(int+100 > int) optimized away In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2007-01/txt/msg01899.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #52 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-23 00:45 ------- (In reply to comment #51) > Sure, new security checks can be written in a compliant manner. > > But what plan do you suggest to find instances of non-compliant overflow > checking in the existing body? Think something like a whole Linux > distribution. Something in the order of 15000 packages. Dozens of millions of > lines of code. Any suggestion? > How about http://scan.coverity.com/ -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30475