This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Compile Time Memory Leak Analyses
- To: jbuck at synopsys dot COM (Joe Buck)
- Subject: Re: Compile Time Memory Leak Analyses
- From: Joern Rennecke <amylaar at redhat dot com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 02:04:03 +0100 (BST)
- Cc: amylaar at redhat dot com (Joern Rennecke),kevina at users dot sourceforge dot net (Kevin Atkinson), gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
> Not at all. Undecidability theorems mean only that an analysis routine
> that tries to establish whether property P is true must return a
> three-valued result (yes, no, and "I don't know"). gcc is full of
> such code. If there are many cases where a definite answer can be
> given, the tool can be useful.
> After all, reachability is also undecidable, but we still eliminate dead
Well, but that's an optimization. We optimize only when we know that it
is safe (at least that's the theory ;-), so while we can't tolerate false
positives, we can tolerate false negatives.
However, for warnings, false positives are extremely annoying, while
false negatives mean that you can miss potential bugs while you are
lulled into a false security that the compiler will warn about problems.
So we set ourselves up for a warning that is likely to become as awkward as
the uninitialized warnings.