From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pg1-x52b.google.com (mail-pg1-x52b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52b]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D26CD3858D33 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2023 12:10:21 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org D26CD3858D33 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Received: by mail-pg1-x52b.google.com with SMTP id 41be03b00d2f7-517bdc9e81dso2336962a12.1 for ; Tue, 06 Jun 2023 05:10:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1686053421; x=1688645421; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=FkkfGNdAEpMP3tJu+dooPhrO+eNaZiLSAqcNc/8SwmA=; b=IinSb0Rz6BkI7TWkFVVkG9G6fG7gkpq/3jvbXzO9QVP1XKYA/qr/tzzpHPHNZqwLRw B/fzxKLwvKQUoUTJxtg0NDFccuL56a1xKMGMf4MoOIyVTrjqCScGPvctiIk6qHbdc1+U Ovh7Q3Bc6L6/vC0zigawEBh2DmKBWmoRT1GEzlIvoqJ5j8TxJdKQX9nGXDVZnrPk3KCe sjQJJDKvsD3GSyFkcof7asZXX/Tg+dvYsnA3lbEbaYIWAKyjtJ7TSJAZmAlTskk37yad pR7JRy2tfa9RA5reQFieIIHV2Pw7XRF+aMZQrw+iczGtS3vCwIUxKxP46ipv13eYd95g FxMg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1686053421; x=1688645421; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=FkkfGNdAEpMP3tJu+dooPhrO+eNaZiLSAqcNc/8SwmA=; b=WenxjavMg5P71P+/9ofkrwvZdwmelDY93UN4PbmfsZDrVpvtuidpI+0k5aMyy43gN6 LrNJOcvif4sLKXTIMsPKoN2RtaW553BAUSVeH//SkYcywcE/lM4w7Vy6Pdo/iA858zYP slQnsMAfQuqPOJPjC4UoFYOkPuWUKM7hm5o7FCc3iq2ajb5k/77P3szc/9JjnTVSX0gO ckLWhaNOmWRfXeW9T4mf0o0SZWBImLhChj69hgK3UI+3LR545q+FMGSg2TUU5+csb7YV p0/8vHcKWv+vdP9UoL4DgfBcBTe4CqdAXB8YJZzVhQoXtky6pcrd4AVrwngs601x0p4z dM5w== X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDySa66ZUIib+IdGINyZ/iqcqg4qIkNiElGWqTlg7qGufmi3xerK Xkaga7Qy3Fu3QUbDmQR7Z2f2Daozn1aWA6dTWw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ5iqfWMxWMBUVN78L/8RNViwXcclr2fsZ13ClQI7Za6rzninXkZaZT/eNeAK2kPjpQVYFkcre+UhW18ArDHNyI= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a20:a126:b0:105:23cf:747d with SMTP id q38-20020a056a20a12600b0010523cf747dmr1538086pzk.5.1686053420738; Tue, 06 Jun 2023 05:10:20 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Benjamin Priour Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2023 14:10:08 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Moving analyzer tests to c-c++-common To: David Malcolm Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: Hi David, Sorry I didn't answer you earlier, I was busy concluding my term. Finally finished yesterday, I now have 100% of my time for GCC. I build yesterday the analyzer with -fanalyzer enabled. Globally there are not many coherent warnings, and a common issue are the thesis-long warnings. Below are the headers of these warnings, the first two were emitted dozen of times across the build. I'll look into these two particularly as it would clean up a lot of noise easily enough. ../../gcc/gcc/wide-int.h:1338:30: warning: use of uninitialized value =E2=80=98=E2=80=98result_decl=E2=80=99 not supported by dump_expr=E2=80=99 [CWE-457] [-Wanalyzer-use-of-uninitialized-value] ../../gcc/gcc/analyzer/bounds-checking.cc:658:44: warning: use of uninitialized value =E2=80=98=E2=80=99 [CWE-457] [-Wanalyzer-use-of-uninitialized-value] ../../gcc/gcc/make-unique.h:41:30: warning: use of possibly-NULL =E2=80=98operator new(120)=E2=80=99 where non-null expected [CWE-690] [-Wanalyzer-possible-null-argument] I'm also adding new tests for c++. Specifically I'm writing tests for the operators [placement] new and delete, as a number of false-positives occurred repeatedly when building the analyzer. I'm also reediting some of the c tests but with their c++ counterparts, such as using the standard libraries containers and see how the analyzer behaves. Should I put them under c-c++-common or c++ ? With a new analyzer folder and analyzer.exp I guess. For the warnings diving too deep into the standard library, I considered adding a flag to the analyzer to control the maximum depth of the warnings. Have a nice day, Benjamin.