public inbox for gcc@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: David Malcolm <dmalcolm@redhat.com>
To: "Φώτης Βαλασιάδης" <barryvalasiadis@gmail.com>, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: GSoC thoughts on C++ static analyzer support
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2022 08:05:57 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <06beb91012365d233e51c3b0354eed44a871d86f.camel@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+NJ8V+B3q3gOM81Wg0GFLVGP3jRuSopoto_71DuO0Ea1Qzbyw@mail.gmail.com>

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
> goals
> beyond these two.
> 
> This pattern could pretty much be used for all resource-like objects
> such
> as sockets, mutexes et cetera and point is that said problems in C++
> are
> already tackled by using RAII
> <https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/raii>. Now I understand
> that
> RAII isn't always an option nor does it solve all problems (for
> example,
> dangling references) so I am still fascinated by all of it and would
> like
> to share my thoughts.
> 
> C++11 mutexes(locks, and generally speaking all thread header
> facilities)
> could really use a static analyzer. Not only for the standard lock(),
> unlock() checks but also for "enforcing" lock ordering and other
> important
> guidelines. Read Anthony William's "Concurrency in Action" a while ago
> and
> honestly if I had a compiler that performed all those checks he
> describes
> in the book for me, which half of them I don't even remember anymore,
> THAT
> would be something else.
> 
> Now I understand that this might be really complicated for a GSoC
> project,
> but food for thought. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on this.

This sounds fascinating, but unfortunately, the analyzer doesn't fully
support all of C++ yet, and so there's a lot of work to be done before
such a project could be attempted; some of that could make for a GSoC
project.

FWIW, there's a tracker bug for C++ support in the analyzer here:
  https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/showdependencytree.cgi?id=97110
and some of those things (e.g. exception-handling) are challenging.

In addition to those specific things, before we can really say that we
"support C++" I think there would also need to be a lot of simply using
the analyzer on C++ codebases to see what happens (including using it
on GCC's code itself) - the "unknown unknowns", as it were.

BTW, I'm about to go on a week-long trip, and will be away from my
computer during that time, so I probably won't be able to send further
emails before the application deadline.

Hope this is helpful
Dave



      reply	other threads:[~2022-04-16 12:06 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-04-15 19:27 Φώτης Βαλασιάδης
2022-04-16 12:05 ` David Malcolm [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=06beb91012365d233e51c3b0354eed44a871d86f.camel@redhat.com \
    --to=dmalcolm@redhat.com \
    --cc=barryvalasiadis@gmail.com \
    --cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).