#Static checker in compiler design code

Second, GCC diagnostics can now have a chain of events associated with them, describing a path through the code that triggers the problem. As of GCC 10, that option text is now a clickable hyperlink (again, assuming a sufficiently capable terminal), which should take you to the documentation for that option (for any warning, not just the ones relating to the analyzer). recent gnome-terminal), the CWE identifier is a clickable hyperlink, taking you to a description of the problem.В Speaking of hyperlinks, for many releases, when GCC emits a warning it prints the option controlling that warning. If you're using GCC 10 with a suitable terminal (e.g. So far, only diagnostics from -fanalyzer have been tagged with CWE weakness identifiers. This tag hopefully makes the output more clear, improves precision, and gives you something simple to type into search engines. In this example, the double-free diagnostic is tagged with CWE-415. This response shows that GCC has learned some new tricks first, the ability for diagnostics to have Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) identifiers. GCC 10 with -fanalyzer reports it as follows:Дouble-free-1.c:6:3: warning: double-вЂ freeвЂ™ of вЂ ptrвЂ™ Here's the simplest possible example of a double-free bug: I'm working hard on fixing things in the hope that the feature will be meaningfully usable for C code by the time of GCC 10's release (likely in April). It works well for small and medium-sized examples, but there are bugs that mean it's not ready for production use. Right now the code is in GCC's master branch for GCC 10 and can be tried out on Compiler Explorer, aka. I haven't succeeded yet, as you'll see below, but I'm working on it. I've aimed for -fanalyzer to 'merely' double the compile time as a reasonable trade-off for the extra checks. My hope is that the analyzer provides a decent amount of extra checking while not being too expensive. For this release, I've focused on the kinds of problems seen in C code-and, in particular double-free bugs-but with a view toward creating a framework that we can expand on in subsequent releases (when we can add more checks and support languages other than C). This issue is, of course, a huge problem to tackle. Hence, it seems worthwhile to have a static analyzer built into the compiler that can see exactly the same code as the compiler sees-because it is the compiler. My thinking here is that it's best to catch problems as early as possible as the code is written, using the compiler the code is written in as part of the compile-edit-debug cycle, rather than having static analysis as an extra tool 'on the side' (perhaps proprietary). For the next major release of GCC, GCC 10, I've been implementing a new -fanalyzer option: A static analysis pass to identify various problems at compile-time, rather than at runtime. I work at Red Hat on GCC, the GNU Compiler Collection.

Static checker in compiler design