Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.unix.programmer > #1088

Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools

From Måns Rullgård <mans@mansr.com>
Newsgroups comp.unix.programmer
Subject Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools
Date 2011-08-08 23:32 +0100
Message-ID <yw1x8vr3ttzl.fsf@unicorn.mansr.com> (permalink)
References <4e3fc1c6$0$940$c3e8da3$9f400e27@news.astraweb.com> <9a9ukcFc3uU1@mid.individual.net> <0.4f4825ba1afbfe0d8edd.20110808153502BST.87mxfkt1ih.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <4e3ffb39$0$5962$c3e8da3$12bcf670@news.astraweb.com> <0.ef8623873fb5aca0c8ae.20110808225720BST.8762m7tvlr.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

Show all headers | View raw

Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes:

> Martin Crouch <spamspamspam@spaml.com> writes:
>
> [Please include attributions (like the line above) in your posts.]
>
>>> I don't think unit tests should be the first line of defence here.  It's
>>> too common to find a forgiving environment where, say, an uninitialised
>>> string happens to be a null string, or where a buffer overrun is silent.
>>>
>>
>> That's right, the code we actually had a problem with passed system
>> testing, user acceptance testing and had been running live for a
>> couple of years without a problem being noticed.  It just happened to
>> get garbage in the wrong part of memory so the string wasn't empty
>> this time and it went pop.
>
> Someone has already pointed out valgrind so I'll just second that.  In
> addition, I've had some good help from splint[1]:
>
>   $ splint printf.c
>   Splint 3.1.2 --- 03 May 2009
>
>   printf.c: (in function main)
>   printf.c:6:23: Passed storage mystring not completely defined (*mystring is
>                     undefined): printf (..., mystring, ...)
>     Storage derivable from a parameter, return value or global is not defined.
>     Use /*@out@*/ to denote passed or returned storage which need not be defined.
>     (Use -compdef to inhibit warning)
>
>   Finished checking --- 1 code warning

IIRC splint will give some error even if you do initialise the array.
It simply has a ridiculous notion of how pointers to should be passed
around.

-- 
Måns Rullgård
mans@mansr.com

Back to comp.unix.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

C Code "sanity checking" tools Martin Crouch <spamspamspam@spaml.com> - 2011-08-08 12:00 +0100
  Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2011-08-08 12:09 +0100
    Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201108.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-08-09 08:50 +0200
      Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools Måns Rullgård <mans@mansr.com> - 2011-08-09 10:55 +0100
        Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-08-09 14:15 +0100
        Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-08-10 01:58 +0200
        Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-08-10 12:29 +0200
      Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-08-09 14:17 +0100
        Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-08-09 09:17 -0700
          Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-08-09 17:36 +0100
            Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-08-09 12:19 -0700
              Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-08-09 20:36 +0100
                Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-08-09 19:24 -0700
                Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-08-10 10:27 +0100
                Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-08-10 14:01 +0100
                Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-08-13 09:42 +0200
                Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-08-13 16:04 -0700
                Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-08-14 19:46 +0100
  Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-08 23:12 +1200
    Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-08-08 15:35 +0100
      Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools Martin Crouch <spamspamspam@spaml.com> - 2011-08-08 16:05 +0100
        Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-08-08 22:57 +0100
          Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools Måns Rullgård <mans@mansr.com> - 2011-08-08 23:32 +0100
      Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-09 08:03 +1200
        Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-08-08 22:51 +0100
          Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-09 10:01 +1200
    Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) - 2011-08-08 22:06 +0000
      Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-09 10:18 +1200
        Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) - 2011-08-08 23:25 +0000
  Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-08-08 14:01 +0100
    Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools Måns Rullgård <mans@mansr.com> - 2011-08-08 14:47 +0100
      Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools Martin Crouch <spamspamspam@spaml.com> - 2011-08-08 16:08 +0100
        Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools Marc <marc.glisse@gmail.com> - 2011-08-08 15:39 +0000
      Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2011-08-08 10:20 -0700
      Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-08-09 00:59 +0100
  Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools mathog <dmathog@gmail.com> - 2011-08-08 08:48 -0700

csiph-web