RFC: Adding annotations to function declarations to improve static analysis
msclrhd at googlemail.com
Sat Sep 27 19:47:57 CDT 2008
2008/9/28 Rob Shearman <robertshearman at gmail.com>:
> Hi all,
> This will be talked about in more detail at WineConf tomorrow, but I
> just thought I'd throw this out there as a bit of background to any
> Adding annotations to function declarations allows Prefast to pick up
> certain classes of bugs with varying degrees of false positives. In
> particular, with patches like the attached applied
> byte-count/element-count mismatches can be detected with no false
> positives and relatively few false positives for off-by-one errors and
> other buffer overruns. Whilst this could be maintained outside of the
> main Wine tree it would be more convenient in terms of automation of
> Prefast runs if a vanilla Wine tree can be used (i.e. the annotation
> patches are in the official tree).
This is a good idea.
Is it possible to make tools like sparse aware of these annotations? I
know that the kernel devs use it to track kernel vs userland pointer
mis-matches, but don't know that much about the details.
It should then be possible to allow users to configure (if not already
available) the build to use sparse as the designated toolchain. This
may also generate even more warnings, even without the annotations :).
More information about the wine-devel