Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

pvs studio static analysis amd64 #413

Closed
igouss opened this issue Nov 1, 2016 · 4 comments
Closed

pvs studio static analysis amd64 #413

igouss opened this issue Nov 1, 2016 · 4 comments

Comments

@igouss
Copy link

igouss commented Nov 1, 2016

FYI

out1.tasklist.txt.zip

@mgaudet
Copy link

mgaudet commented Nov 2, 2016

Thanks! There's certainly some things in there that ought to be looked at.

I'm going to try to triage this slowly into some new issues, but much appreciated :D

@amankumar1
Copy link
Contributor

I have made a summary of all the errors and warnings from the file, sorted by the total count of each error and warning encountered along with a brief description. See summary.txt.

There is a separate text file for each error code in the warn and err folders. Each text file contains the complete PVS Studio output for all occurrences of that error or warning.

pvs.zip

@mgaudet
Copy link

mgaudet commented Nov 10, 2016

Just so people don't have to download the zip file, I have put up summary.txt in a Gist Thanks for formatting the list @amankumar1

IMO, there's some clear choices for things we ought to look at early:

  • V595 : 48 : Pointer was utilized before it was verified against nullptr (modern
  • V614 : 13 : Potentially uninitialized variable used
  • V561 : 5 : It's probably better to assign value to a pertivular variable than to declare it anew (potentially dangerous variable shadowing)
  • V512 : 2 : Call to function leads to buffer overflow
  • V598 : 9 : 'memcpy' is used to copy fields of class. Virtual table pointer damaged

There's also some silly low hanging fruit:

@mgaudet
Copy link

mgaudet commented Nov 10, 2016

@0xdaryl Can we get this labelled with 'help wanted'?

amankumar1 added a commit to amankumar1/omr that referenced this issue Nov 24, 2016
The ternary statement of the form `a?b:b` was changed to `b`.

Issue: eclipse-omr#413

Signed-off-by: Aman Kumar <amank@ca.ibm.com>
doubletea pushed a commit to doubletea/omr that referenced this issue Dec 14, 2016
The ternary statement of the form `a?b:b` was changed to `b`.

Issue: eclipse-omr#413

Signed-off-by: Aman Kumar <amank@ca.ibm.com>
(cherry picked from commit e2228e8)
doubletea pushed a commit to doubletea/omr that referenced this issue Dec 14, 2016
Fix ternary statement in optimizer

The ternary statement of the form `a?b:b` was changed to `b`.

Issue: eclipse-omr#413

Signed-off-by: Aman Kumar <amank@ca.ibm.com>
(cherry picked from commit e2228e8)

See merge request !168
@igouss igouss closed this as completed Apr 8, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants