Clang Static analysis
I have been doing a Clang static analysis of Wine on OS X using the one provided at http://clang-analyzer.llvm.org and storing the results on my PogoPlug drive. If someone wants to see the results, please tell me and I'll set up your e-mail. You will need a free PogoPlug account to view them. While the contents are zipped, they expand to about 1.2 GB. They are displayed as basic HTML pages, so you don't need anything special other than a web browser to see the results. Or you could click on this link for the analysis of 1.7.4: http://ppl.ug/ND-7PZ3cSzM/
Re: Updated Clang static analysis results / Valgrind update
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 17:02, Austin English austinengl...@gmail.com wrote: Valgrind (ac0a7b644fa464fa640e06a6e26b2191b5a29a92) : http://austinenglish.com/logs/valgrind/2011-09-07-11.07/ Clang (f74a897f0eb47bea874b9247a24ad0dd61aa3507): http://www.sendspace.com/file/nvoxsk c8521b390e70a3ed31c00e69a095a35b702e1b0f scan-build-2011-09-06-1.tar.bz2 we're down to 1629 from 1815 (though some of that could be improved Clang analyzer) :). -- -Austin http://www.sendspace.com/file/1qo4an 6c896e9e7b230de6b22218410dde664e460079f5 scan-build-2011-12-05-1.tar.bz2 1770 warnings. -- -Austin
Re: Updated Clang static analysis results / Valgrind update
Valgrind (ac0a7b644fa464fa640e06a6e26b2191b5a29a92) : http://austinenglish.com/logs/valgrind/2011-09-07-11.07/ Clang (f74a897f0eb47bea874b9247a24ad0dd61aa3507): http://www.sendspace.com/file/nvoxsk c8521b390e70a3ed31c00e69a095a35b702e1b0f scan-build-2011-09-06-1.tar.bz2 we're down to 1629 from 1815 (though some of that could be improved Clang analyzer) :). -- -Austin
Re: Updated Clang static analysis results / Valgrind update
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 4:15 AM, Austin English austinengl...@gmail.com wrote: Web space usage was getting a bit high, so I've uploaded a tarball to a file download service: http://www.sendspace.com/file/5hot36 Thanks for posting it, it is really helpful. I managed to find and fix a double free in one of my tests. Keep it up, Michael Mc Donnell
Re: Updated Clang static analysis results / Valgrind update
2011/7/26 André Hentschel n...@dawncrow.de: Am 26.07.2011 01:17, schrieb Austin English: On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 19:15, Austin English austinengl...@gmail.com wrote: Web space usage was getting a bit high, so I've uploaded a tarball to a file download service: http://www.sendspace.com/file/5hot36 austin@aw21 ~ $ sha1sum scan-build-2011-07-02.tar.bz2 ac3cb3920ef97641fff1f5376f8136cef01f15bf scan-build-2011-07-02.tar.bz2 to use, just extract and open in your favorite browser: $ firefox index.html this was run against Clang from svn: clang version 3.0 (trunk 134320) Please send me any false positives that you'd like me to report upstream. Cheers, Austin P.S. For those of you wanting Valgrind results, I'm currently hitting a nasty Valgrind bug, waiting on upstream to fix: https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=275673 (Thanks to Andrew N for finding the faulty commit) Updated clang results, with: clang version 3.0 (trunk 135936) and wine-1.3.25-52-g9d7d37f are at http://www.sendspace.com/file/x81pne 77f1b2d0fdd8cb79d4caf20279b36dc047fcc325 scan-build-2011-07-25.tar.xz This gives 1815 warnings (previously had 1857). Again, if you see any false positives, please let me know so that I can report them upstream. For valgrind, see http://austinenglish.com/logs/valgrind/2011-07-25-10.19 I've disabled a few tests, to workaround valgrind bug 275673. See http://code.google.com/p/winezeug/source/diff?spec=svn2431r=2431format=sidepath=/trunk/valgrind/valgrind-daily.sh I've got some more interesting stuff in the works, time permitting. Keep tuned ;-). Cheers, Austin in your actual valgrind logs there is quite much noise about at ??? (in /usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/libfontconfig.so.1.4.4) what's that? Thanks for letting me know. I filed: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=635609 for that. I've added a suppression for it, today's results are fontconfig free: http://austinenglish.com/logs/valgrind/2011-07-27-12.24/ Cheers, Austin
Re: Updated Clang static analysis results / Valgrind update
Am 26.07.2011 01:17, schrieb Austin English: On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 19:15, Austin English austinengl...@gmail.com wrote: Web space usage was getting a bit high, so I've uploaded a tarball to a file download service: http://www.sendspace.com/file/5hot36 austin@aw21 ~ $ sha1sum scan-build-2011-07-02.tar.bz2 ac3cb3920ef97641fff1f5376f8136cef01f15bf scan-build-2011-07-02.tar.bz2 to use, just extract and open in your favorite browser: $ firefox index.html this was run against Clang from svn: clang version 3.0 (trunk 134320) Please send me any false positives that you'd like me to report upstream. Cheers, Austin P.S. For those of you wanting Valgrind results, I'm currently hitting a nasty Valgrind bug, waiting on upstream to fix: https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=275673 (Thanks to Andrew N for finding the faulty commit) Updated clang results, with: clang version 3.0 (trunk 135936) and wine-1.3.25-52-g9d7d37f are at http://www.sendspace.com/file/x81pne 77f1b2d0fdd8cb79d4caf20279b36dc047fcc325 scan-build-2011-07-25.tar.xz This gives 1815 warnings (previously had 1857). Again, if you see any false positives, please let me know so that I can report them upstream. For valgrind, see http://austinenglish.com/logs/valgrind/2011-07-25-10.19 I've disabled a few tests, to workaround valgrind bug 275673. See http://code.google.com/p/winezeug/source/diff?spec=svn2431r=2431format=sidepath=/trunk/valgrind/valgrind-daily.sh I've got some more interesting stuff in the works, time permitting. Keep tuned ;-). Cheers, Austin in your actual valgrind logs there is quite much noise about at ??? (in /usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/libfontconfig.so.1.4.4) what's that? -- Best Regards, André Hentschel
Re: Updated Clang static analysis results / Valgrind update
On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 19:15, Austin English austinengl...@gmail.com wrote: Web space usage was getting a bit high, so I've uploaded a tarball to a file download service: http://www.sendspace.com/file/5hot36 austin@aw21 ~ $ sha1sum scan-build-2011-07-02.tar.bz2 ac3cb3920ef97641fff1f5376f8136cef01f15bf scan-build-2011-07-02.tar.bz2 to use, just extract and open in your favorite browser: $ firefox index.html this was run against Clang from svn: clang version 3.0 (trunk 134320) Please send me any false positives that you'd like me to report upstream. Cheers, Austin P.S. For those of you wanting Valgrind results, I'm currently hitting a nasty Valgrind bug, waiting on upstream to fix: https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=275673 (Thanks to Andrew N for finding the faulty commit) Updated clang results, with: clang version 3.0 (trunk 135936) and wine-1.3.25-52-g9d7d37f are at http://www.sendspace.com/file/x81pne 77f1b2d0fdd8cb79d4caf20279b36dc047fcc325 scan-build-2011-07-25.tar.xz This gives 1815 warnings (previously had 1857). Again, if you see any false positives, please let me know so that I can report them upstream. For valgrind, see http://austinenglish.com/logs/valgrind/2011-07-25-10.19 I've disabled a few tests, to workaround valgrind bug 275673. See http://code.google.com/p/winezeug/source/diff?spec=svn2431r=2431format=sidepath=/trunk/valgrind/valgrind-daily.sh I've got some more interesting stuff in the works, time permitting. Keep tuned ;-). Cheers, Austin
Re: Updated Clang static analysis results / Valgrind update
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 04:15, Austin English austinengl...@gmail.com wrote: Web space usage was getting a bit high, so I've uploaded a tarball to a file download service: http://www.sendspace.com/file/5hot36 austin@aw21 ~ $ sha1sum scan-build-2011-07-02.tar.bz2 ac3cb3920ef97641fff1f5376f8136cef01f15bf scan-build-2011-07-02.tar.bz2 FWIW, you could use xz instead of bzip2 to further reduce the download size (54 MiB) I got the size down to 46 MiB using default settings, and 25 MiB using max compression (xz -9) Frédéric
Re: Updated Clang static analysis results / Valgrind update
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 04:15, Austin English austinenglish at gmail.com http://www.winehq.org/mailman/listinfo/wine-devel wrote: / Web space usage was getting a bit high, so I've uploaded a tarball to // a file download service: // http://www.sendspace.com/file/5hot36 // // austin at aw21 http://www.winehq.org/mailman/listinfo/wine-devel ~ $ sha1sum scan-build-2011-07-02.tar.bz2 // ac3cb3920ef97641fff1f5376f8136cef01f15bf scan-build-2011-07-02.tar.bz2 / FWIW, you could use xz instead of bzip2 to further reduce the download size (54 MiB) I got the size down to 46 MiB using default settings, and 25 MiB using max compression (xz -9) Frédéric I have heard about he xz compressor, so I was interested on how 7zip and xz perform maxed-out: 7z a -t7z -m0=lzma -mx=9 -mfb=255 -md=256m -ms=on scan-build-2011-07-02-1.7z scan-build-2011-07-02-1 11.87MiB - 12445530 scan-build-2011-07-02-1.7z xz -zkc -Fxz -9e -M5GB --lzma2='dict=256Mi,nice=273,mf=bt4' scan-build-2011-07-02-1.tar scan-build-2011-07-02-1.xz 12.14MiB - 12726004 scan-build-2011-07-02-1.xz I didn't measure time, but it wasn't very long; xz took longer, because it doesn't support multithreading. Both required 3.5GB of memory at the peek.
Re: Updated Clang static analysis results / Valgrind update
2011/7/3 Vincas Miliūnas vincas.miliu...@gmail.com: On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 04:15, Austin English austinenglish at gmail.com http://www.winehq.org/mailman/listinfo/wine-devel wrote: / Web space usage was getting a bit high, so I've uploaded a tarball to // a file download service: // http://www.sendspace.com/file/5hot36 // // austin at aw21 http://www.winehq.org/mailman/listinfo/wine-devel ~ $ sha1sum scan-build-2011-07-02.tar.bz2 // ac3cb3920ef97641fff1f5376f8136cef01f15bf scan-build-2011-07-02.tar.bz2 / FWIW, you could use xz instead of bzip2 to further reduce the download size (54 MiB) I got the size down to 46 MiB using default settings, and 25 MiB using max compression (xz -9) Frédéric I have heard about he xz compressor, so I was interested on how 7zip and xz perform maxed-out: 7z a -t7z -m0=lzma -mx=9 -mfb=255 -md=256m -ms=on scan-build-2011-07-02-1.7z scan-build-2011-07-02-1 11.87MiB - 12445530 scan-build-2011-07-02-1.7z xz -zkc -Fxz -9e -M5GB --lzma2='dict=256Mi,nice=273,mf=bt4' scan-build-2011-07-02-1.tar scan-build-2011-07-02-1.xz 12.14MiB - 12726004 scan-build-2011-07-02-1.xz I didn't measure time, but it wasn't very long; xz took longer, because it doesn't support multithreading. Both required 3.5GB of memory at the peek. Well I didn't use all the xz options TBH... I only have 4 GiB of RAM, so... With xz -9 it used like 600 MiB memory. Don't know about 7z, but xz manpage says it requires 5-20% RAM for decompression compared to compression, so it maybe a bit (too) high with your options for certain people. I once did a (quick) comparison between rzip/lrzip (which I think is in the same family as 7z) and xz, and had comparable results (give ot take 1% or 2), but xz was WAY quicker (something like 7-8x). xz was about a quick (or quicker) than bzip2 with better compression ratios/less memory usage, so it seemed a good compromise You probably have a monster machine if it didn't take very long for you though ;) Frédéric
Re: Updated Clang static analysis results / Valgrind update
On 07/03/2011 04:33 PM, Frédéric Delanoy wrote: 2011/7/3 Vincas Miliūnas vincas.miliu...@gmail.com: On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 04:15, Austin English austinenglish at gmail.com http://www.winehq.org/mailman/listinfo/wine-devel wrote: / Web space usage was getting a bit high, so I've uploaded a tarball to // a file download service: // http://www.sendspace.com/file/5hot36 // // austin at aw21 http://www.winehq.org/mailman/listinfo/wine-devel ~ $ sha1sum scan-build-2011-07-02.tar.bz2 // ac3cb3920ef97641fff1f5376f8136cef01f15bf scan-build-2011-07-02.tar.bz2 / FWIW, you could use xz instead of bzip2 to further reduce the download size (54 MiB) I got the size down to 46 MiB using default settings, and 25 MiB using max compression (xz -9) Frédéric I have heard about he xz compressor, so I was interested on how 7zip and xz perform maxed-out: 7z a -t7z -m0=lzma -mx=9 -mfb=255 -md=256m -ms=on scan-build-2011-07-02-1.7z scan-build-2011-07-02-1 11.87MiB - 12445530 scan-build-2011-07-02-1.7z xz -zkc -Fxz -9e -M5GB --lzma2='dict=256Mi,nice=273,mf=bt4' scan-build-2011-07-02-1.tar scan-build-2011-07-02-1.xz 12.14MiB - 12726004 scan-build-2011-07-02-1.xz I didn't measure time, but it wasn't very long; xz took longer, because it doesn't support multithreading. Both required 3.5GB of memory at the peek. Well I didn't use all the xz options TBH... I only have 4 GiB of RAM, so... With xz -9 it used like 600 MiB memory. Don't know about 7z, but xz manpage says it requires 5-20% RAM for decompression compared to compression, so it maybe a bit (too) high with your options for certain people. I once did a (quick) comparison between rzip/lrzip (which I think is in the same family as 7z) and xz, and had comparable results (give ot take 1% or 2), but xz was WAY quicker (something like 7-8x). xz was about a quick (or quicker) than bzip2 with better compression ratios/less memory usage, so it seemed a good compromise You probably have a monster machine if it didn't take very long for you though ;) Frédéric No, I have an old E8400 w/ 8GiB of RAM. I reran the 7z compression with time measurement. Decompression of the previous 7z archive took ~3 seconds to a ram drive. Looking at the exact numbers, I guess I overestimated :), it did take a considerable amount of time and multithreading isn't very impressive: real10m39.469s user12m14.888s sys0m3.839s But I agree, from what I have seen, xz is certainly superior to bzip2.
Updated Clang static analysis results / Valgrind update
Web space usage was getting a bit high, so I've uploaded a tarball to a file download service: http://www.sendspace.com/file/5hot36 austin@aw21 ~ $ sha1sum scan-build-2011-07-02.tar.bz2 ac3cb3920ef97641fff1f5376f8136cef01f15bf scan-build-2011-07-02.tar.bz2 to use, just extract and open in your favorite browser: $ firefox index.html this was run against Clang from svn: clang version 3.0 (trunk 134320) Please send me any false positives that you'd like me to report upstream. Cheers, Austin P.S. For those of you wanting Valgrind results, I'm currently hitting a nasty Valgrind bug, waiting on upstream to fix: https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=275673 (Thanks to Andrew N for finding the faulty commit)
updated LLVM/Clang static analysis results (and valgirind :-))
Original results: Date: Thu Jan 20 22:59:57 2011 All Bugs2922 Argument with 'nonnull' attribute passed null 99 Idempotent operation154 Dead assignment 1464 Dead increment 155 Dead initialization 22 Array subscript is undefined5 Assigned value is garbage or undefined 96 Branch condition evaluates to a garbage value 10 Called function pointer is null (null dereference) 6 Dereference of null pointer 757 Dereference of undefined pointer value 8 Division by zero12 Function call argument is an uninitialized value49 Garbage return value9 Result of operation is garbage or undefined 74 Undefined allocation of 0 bytes 2 New results: All Bugs2817 Argument with 'nonnull' attribute passed null 100 Idempotent operation156 Dead assignment 1368 Dead increment 152 Dead initialization 22 Array subscript is undefined4 Assigned value is garbage or undefined 96 Branch condition evaluates to a garbage value 9 Called function pointer is null (null dereference) 6 Dereference of null pointer 757 Dereference of undefined pointer value 8 Division by zero12 Function call argument is an uninitialized value46 Garbage return value7 Result of operation is garbage or undefined 72 Undefined allocation of 0 bytes 2 Available at: http://austinenglish.com/logs/clang_analyzer/index.html and valgrind logs: http://austinenglish.com/logs/valgrind/ if you've looked at valgrind logs and see errors that should be suppressed, please email me and I'll add them. Cheers, Austin
