> "Unknown" ranges from 49% to 76%.
Yeah, this is interesting. They're saying they can't determine whether a pointer targets an array buffer or not? Perhaps they might want to take a look at the (long neglected) "C to SaferCPlusPlus" translator[1] which can do this. (It was an unexpectedly taxing undertaking though.) It converts C arrays and allocated buffers used as arrays into memory safe implementations of std::array<>s and std::vector<>s, so failure to properly identify them would generally result in output code that wouldn't compile.
The examples they give of problematic code in the paper:
void f(int* a) {
*(int**)a = a;
}
and
f1(((int*) 0x8f8000));
don't strike me as the kind you would often encounter in real-world code.
> The syntax they use is rather clunky
The output code of the "C to SaferCPlusPlus" translator replaces the types and declarations with macros[2] that can be redefined with a compile-time directive to either use the safe C++ implementation, or revert to the original unsafe native C implementation. The argument being that using macros instead of custom syntax makes the source code more versatile. And existing C programmers already "get" macros.
[1] shameless plug: https://github.com/duneroadrunner/SaferCPlusPlus-AutoTransla...
[2] https://github.com/duneroadrunner/SaferCPlusPlus/blob/master...
Yeah, this is interesting. They're saying they can't determine whether a pointer targets an array buffer or not? Perhaps they might want to take a look at the (long neglected) "C to SaferCPlusPlus" translator[1] which can do this. (It was an unexpectedly taxing undertaking though.) It converts C arrays and allocated buffers used as arrays into memory safe implementations of std::array<>s and std::vector<>s, so failure to properly identify them would generally result in output code that wouldn't compile.
The examples they give of problematic code in the paper:
and don't strike me as the kind you would often encounter in real-world code.> The syntax they use is rather clunky
The output code of the "C to SaferCPlusPlus" translator replaces the types and declarations with macros[2] that can be redefined with a compile-time directive to either use the safe C++ implementation, or revert to the original unsafe native C implementation. The argument being that using macros instead of custom syntax makes the source code more versatile. And existing C programmers already "get" macros.
[1] shameless plug: https://github.com/duneroadrunner/SaferCPlusPlus-AutoTransla...
[2] https://github.com/duneroadrunner/SaferCPlusPlus/blob/master...