| From: | Tom Browder <tom(dot)browder(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Static code checker research worth investigating (Communications of the ACM, 03/2016, Vol. 59, No. 03, p. 99) |
| Date: | 2016-03-05 12:51:27 |
| Message-ID: | CAFMGiz_-7xkoaP0+VVw-vMMF1Qhyz5zdWZDLkEEs6=5HiPxhnA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 6:41 AM, Tomas Vondra
<tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sat, 2016-03-05 at 06:24 -0600, Tom Browder wrote:
>> Interesting article in latest issue of subject titled:
>>
>> "A Differential Approach to Undefined Behavior Detection"
...
> AFAIK this is not an entirely new tool - it was published a few years
> back (2013?) along with a paper that also mentioned a few issues in
> PostgreSQL. And it was dealt with, see for example this thread
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20130715215950(dot)GA4165(at)eldon(dot)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org
>
> Or is this something new?
No, and I think the article mentions that at least one bug was found
in the postgresql code.
Sorry for the false alarm.
Best regards,
-Tom
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Stark | 2016-03-05 12:59:18 | Re: Static code checker research worth investigating (Communications of the ACM, 03/2016, Vol. 59, No. 03, p. 99) |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2016-03-05 12:41:40 | Re: Static code checker research worth investigating (Communications of the ACM, 03/2016, Vol. 59, No. 03, p. 99) |