From: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Browder <tom(dot)browder(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <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 13:03:26 |
Message-ID: | CAM-w4HMuobcrzGCoc5URKdEzyT-J1c4C-sJb8hm2MRnezuWSuQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote:
> Well. Not dealt with yet. I think it's more or less clear how to
> tackle it using macros and builtins now but there's a lot of drudgery
> work to actually rewrite all the checks. I have the reports from Xi
> Wang's tool saved if anyone else wants to take it up. I would say it's
> on my TODO list but that's more of an abstract concept than an actual
> list.
[Removing all the other xposted lists -- don't do that!]
And fwiw the reason it's not an urgent issue for Postgres is because
we build with -fwrapv, essentially asking the compiler for a C
language that offers more guarantees than the standard (but matches
traditional C environments). So there isn't an active bug on Postgres
with GCC (or I think Clang) but may be with other compilers if they
don't have that option.
--
greg
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-03-05 13:25:36 | Re: silent data loss with ext4 / all current versions |
Previous 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) |