Cppcheck design: more tweaks

This commit is contained in:
Daniel Marjamäki 2010-12-30 10:17:17 +01:00
parent 19c7550ae0
commit 20887a40a3
1 changed files with 26 additions and 48 deletions

View File

@ -31,7 +31,7 @@
error even though there is no error.</para>
<para>Cppcheck is a relatively simple tool. I hope that this article will
highlight that it is possible to avoid false warnings with simple
highlight that it is possible to avoid false warnings even with simple
analysis.</para>
</section>
@ -41,11 +41,8 @@
<para>There are many bugs in programs that are really hard to detect for
tools. Here is an example:</para>
<programlisting>// calculate the number of days
int days(int hours)
{
return hours / 23;
}</programlisting>
<programlisting> // calculate the number of days
int days = hours / 23;</programlisting>
<para>A human programmer knows that there are 24 hours in a day and
therefore he could see that "23" is wrong. A tool will probably not know
@ -62,24 +59,12 @@ int days(int hours)
<section>
<title>Control flow analysis</title>
<para>Control flow analysis is when the tool tries to determine if certain
execution paths are possible.</para>
<programlisting>void f(int x)
{
if (x == 1)
f1();
if (x &amp; 2)
f2();
}</programlisting>
<para>The function has 3 possible execution paths. The analysis you do in
your head when you determine that there are 3 possible execution paths is
"control flow analysis".</para>
<para>When you review code you will probably use "control flow analysis"
in your head to determine if there are bugs or not.</para>
<para>Control flow analysis is when you try to determine what the possible
execution paths are.</para>
<para>The control flow analysis in Cppcheck is quite simple.</para>
</section>
@ -89,11 +74,8 @@ int days(int hours)
<para>This is a simple description of how buffer overflows are detected by
Cppcheck.</para>
<para>For simple cases, no control flow analysis is used. If an array is
accessed out of bounds somewhere in its scope then an error message will
be written.</para>
<para>An example code:</para>
<para>If an array is accessed out of bounds somewhere in its scope then an
error message will be written. An example code:</para>
<programlisting>void f()
{
@ -107,14 +89,15 @@ int days(int hours)
<programlisting>Array 'a[10]' index 20 out of bounds</programlisting>
<para>Cppcheck will not try to determine how execution can reach the
"a[20] = 0;" statement. It is assumed that all statements are reachable.
Cppcheck will detect the error even if it is really impossible that "x + y
== 2" is true. I still claim that this is a correct warning because the
statement is there and it has the error.</para>
<para>No control flow analysis is used. Cppcheck will not try to determine
how execution can reach the "a[20] = 0;" statement. It is assumed that all
statements are reachable. Cppcheck will detect the error even if it is
really impossible that "x + y == 2" is true. I still claim that this is a
correct warning because the statement is there and it has the
error.</para>
<para>Cppcheck will also investigate function calls. But then control flow
analysis is needed to avoid false warnings. Here is an example that
analysis can be needed to avoid false warnings. Here is an example that
logically is the same as the previous example:</para>
<para><programlisting>void f1(char *s)
@ -136,10 +119,8 @@ void f2()
error.</para>
<para>But if the condition is moved into "f1" then it will be necessary to
prove that "x+y==2" can be true when the function is called from
"f2".</para>
<para>No error message is reported for this code:</para>
prove that "x+y==2" can be true when the function is called from "f2". No
error message is reported for this code:</para>
<para><programlisting>void f1(char *s)
{
@ -158,11 +139,10 @@ void f2()
<section>
<title>Memory leaks</title>
<para>Simple control-flow analysis is made. The assumtion is that all
conditions can always be either true or false. It is assumed that all
statements are reachable.</para>
<para>Here is an example:</para>
<para>The check uses simple control-flow analysis. The control flow
analysis assumes that all conditions can always be either true or false.
It is assumed that all statements are reachable. Here is an
example:</para>
<programlisting>void f()
{
@ -197,9 +177,10 @@ void f2()
}</programlisting>
<para>Cppcheck doesn't detect any error. The "all conditions can be either
true/false" means that cppcheck doesn't know that "if (x==20)" is false
when "if (x==10)" is true. Many other static analysis tools will probably
detect that there will be a leak if x is 10.</para>
true/false" means that cppcheck doesn't know that "if (x==20)" is always
false when "if (x==10)" is true. So Cppcheck can't establish that there is
a leak. Many other static analysis tools will probably detect that there
will be a leak if x is 10.</para>
</section>
<section>
@ -208,9 +189,6 @@ void f2()
<para>You can not trust that Cppcheck will detect all bugs.</para>
<para>Cppcheck will just find some bugs. It is likely that you won't find
these bugs unless you use Cppcheck. Cppcheck has found bugs in production
code that has been used for years.</para>
<para></para>
these bugs unless you use Cppcheck.</para>
</section>
</article>