On Tue, 9 Jul 2002, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 02:47:49PM -0700, Robert Love escreveu:
> > On Tue, 2002-07-09 at 07:44, Dave Hansen wrote:
> >
> > > The Stanford Checker or something resembling it would be invaluable
> > > here. It would be a hell of a lot better than my litle patch!
> >
> > The Stanford Checker would be infinitely invaluable here -- agreed.
> >
> > Anything that can graph call chains and do analysis... we can get it to
> > tell us exactly who and what.
Not anything. It can be used to find problems (and be very helpful at that)
but it can't be used to verify anything.
The problem is that checker doesn't (and cannot) cover all code paths -
by the time when it comes into the game the source had already passed
through through cpp. In other words, depending on the configuration
you might get very different results.
Normally it's not that bad, but "can this function block?" is very nasty
in that respect - changes of configuration can and do affect that in
non-trivial ways. Checker can be _very_ useful since it allows to catch
some of the existing bugs, but it should not be used as a justification
of change that might introduce bugs if some assumption ever becomes false.
> Try smatch:
>
> http://smatch.sf.net
>
> And see if you can write a smatch script to get a good broom for this trash 8)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 15 2002 - 22:00:16 EST