- User Since
- Dec 14 2016, 1:50 AM (190 w, 3 d)
Nov 27 2018
Looks correct clang-format to me.
Jul 25 2018
Jul 12 2018
@martong I don't have commit rights. Thanks for your help in advance.
Jul 11 2018
Minor fixes for Aleksei's comments.
Jul 4 2018
@a.sidorin what do you think?
Jun 20 2018
Added @martong 's suggestions.
Jun 15 2018
Updated to not conflict with and use the stuff implemented in https://reviews.llvm.org/D47445 (so became a bit smaller)
Now, it is ready for a review. Enjoy!
Jun 12 2018
Jun 8 2018
Feb 12 2018
Dec 15 2017
Dec 11 2017
Dec 6 2017
The code modifications are coming soon (after doing some extensive testing) for the scan-build part.
Nov 29 2017
Thanks George for the review. I will start working on the code right away. I've tried to answer the simpler cases.
Nov 13 2017
Thank you guys!
removing non-conforming braces
Removing needless asserts and typos
Nov 6 2017
ASTImporter unittests added.
Oct 24 2017
Aug 28 2017
Jun 14 2017
Before abandoning this patch and rewriting it, I would like to get a thumbs up for my plans: I will reimplement all functionality included here but without creating a new checker. Some parts which relate to specific checkers will be put into the corresponding checkers (like ArrayBoundCheckerV2). General ideas on taintedness (cleansing rules and usage warnings on standard types) will be put into GenericTaintChecker. We will see how it goes, will we have a smaller patch or not. WDYT?
Mar 31 2017
Mar 13 2017
Better check not letting a real import problem passing through
Mar 10 2017
Stepping back a bit, what do you consider "dirty" vs "clean"? It seems that you are looking for prove that the values are known to be within the bounds of min and max int values. What happens if there is a comparison to an unknown symbolic value? Should that be considered as clean or tainted? Are there test cases for this?
Mar 3 2017
Hmm... I am thinking on this issue for a week now...
Feb 28 2017
Feb 17 2017
Hi, did you have time to check my changes?
Dec 22 2016
So thank you again for the valuable questions.
In this checker, I give warnings for values which are both tainted and were also not checked by the programmer. So unlike GenericTaintChecker, I do implement the boundedness check here for certain, interesting constructs (which is controlled by the critical option). GenericTaintChecker focuses purely on taintedness, almost like a service for other checkers. I've added a new rule to it, improving the taintedness logic, but I felt mixing the bound checking logic into it would make the two ideas inseparable.
Thank you very much for your help. I've added all suggested modifications including tests covering all checker option settings.