On Tue, 2021-04-06 at 17:56 +0530, Ankur Saini wrote:
Hi Ankur.
Various replies inline below throughout.
> > On 30-Mar-2021, at 7:27 PM, David Malcolm
> > wrote:
>
> > > This gave rise to some questions
> > >
> > > 1. why does the analyzer make exceptions with the main() function
> > > ?
> >
> On 30-Mar-2021, at 7:27 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
>> This gave rise to some questions
>>
>> 1. why does the analyzer make exceptions with the main() function ?
>
> The user's attention is important - we don't want to spam the user with
> unnecessary reports if we can help it.
make sense.
On Tue, 2021-03-30 at 16:36 +0530, Ankur Saini wrote:
> hello sir
>
> in my quest of finding a bug ( which ended up being a feature ) along
> with it’s source in the analyzer, I tested the code on these 2 code
> snippets and here’s how I went towards it
>
> (1)
> int main()
> {
> int *ptr =
hello sir
in my quest of finding a bug ( which ended up being a feature ) along with it’s
source in the analyzer, I tested the code on these 2 code snippets and here’s
how I went towards it
(1)
int main()
{
int *ptr = (int *)malloc(sizeof(int));
return 0;
}
link to running example (h
> On 06-Mar-2021, at 6:05 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
>
> If you run the analyzer on your own code, and can trigger a false
> positive or a false negative with the analyzer on it, and try to figure
> out the issue, that could be a useful step (though it might turn out to
> be a difficult one to fi
On Fri, 2021-03-05 at 17:04 +0530, Ankur Saini via Gcc wrote:
> Hello,
Hi Ankur
> While looking for some project to contribute on for GSOC 2021, I came
> across project about extending static analyser pass, especially the
> part that involve adding C++ support to it.
>
> I have already used -fan
