noplate VS ikos

Hi Martin, thank you for writing this proposal. This is just my two cents, but one-off void* functions, like qsort, are less of a pain point relative to generic containers. With generic containers it's common to have a collection of void* functions that must be consistently invoked with identical type T. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this proposal cannot genericize a struct field, i.e. it can genericize type 'T' but not 'T->someField'. The latter would be useful for something like 'vec_push(v,p)' where 'v->data[]' is the type T needed to determine if 'p' is a compatible type.

Tangentially related, the macro-based containers you've written here [1] are the best answer for type-generic containers I've come across. One "gotcha" is the container name must be a valid C identifier otherwise it doesn't token paste correctly (see Example #2 of your REAMDE where you typedef'd string* as string_ptr to workaround this). Would you give consideration to a new preprocessor mechanism for concatenating a list of tokens into a single valid C identifier? i.e. Something like CONCAT(struct Foo *) would produce struct_Foo_Ptr? The result is guaranteed token paste-able.

[1] https://github.com/uecker/noplate

I am exploring way on how to implement this in C (with some extensions) as a library:

https://github.com/uecker/noplate

Certainly not production ready.

I beg to differ: there are a few tools which are comparable.

Frama-C (https://www.frama-c.com) is an open source framework that has, among its analyzers, one based on abstract interpretation (https://www.frama-c.com/fc-plugins/eva.html) that is very similar in spirit to Astree.

MOPSA (https://mopsa.lip6.fr) is another open-source project (albeit more recent, and in a more "academic" stage) that also provides abstract interpretation to analyze C programs for flaws.

NASA also released IKOS (https://github.com/NASA-SW-VnV/ikos), on the same vein.

Of course they lack the polish of a product which costs tens of thousands of euros per license, but they are open source, and their purpose is the same: to ensure code safety via formal methods, in particular abstract interpretation.

It is possible to get these tools to analyze some code and generate no complaints, which ensures absence of several kinds of problems, such as memory safety issues.

Then again, it's hard to know exactly how much they differ from Astree, since you need a license to compare them, and I don't even know if you are allowed to publish such comparisons.

I've been playing around with running IKOS (https://github.com/NASA-SW-VnV/ikos), it sounds very cool but doesn't seem to be super well maintained. I've managed to compile my project to llvm bit-code and run the IKSO on it, but the actual analysis seems to be buggy. There are open issues for the problems I encountered, but the make the analysis pretty useless (it thinks most functions are unreachable).

> https://www.absint.com/astree/index.htm

This looks interesting. It's based on abstract interpretation which is more or less the most powerful approach for imperative code available. (Because the way it works it's likely slow as hell though, I guess).

But it's closed source. One of this kind of products where you need to asks for the price… I think we all know what this means: It'll be laughably expensive.

I don't see any offer for OpenSource projects frankly.

> https://github.com/NASA-SW-VnV/ikos

Also abstract interpretation based. Looks less polished than the first one at first glance.

It's under some questionable license. According to OSI it's OpenSource. According to the FSF it's not. (The FSF argument sounds strong. They're right in my opinion. This NASA license does not look like OpenSource).

But an OpenSource project could use it for free I assume.

> https://github.com/static-analysis-engineering/CodeHawk-C

Much more constrained in scope than the other ones. But looks a little bit "too academic" imho: Uses its own C parser and such.

At least it's OpenSource under MIT license.

Thanks for the links either way! Good to know about some tools in case one would need them at some point.

> I have planned to try using them on OpenZFS for a while, but I am still busy reviewing and fixing reports made by conventional static analyzers.

Stupid question about usual C development practices (as I don't have much contact with that):

Aren't analyzers today part of the build pipeline form the get go? Especially as C is known to be full of booby traps.

Imho it shouldn't be even possible to push anything that has issues discovered by tools.

This should be the lowest barrier as most code analyzers are at most able to spot quite obvious problems (the commercial one above is likely an exception to this "rule"). When even the usual "stupid analyzer" sees issues than the code is very likely in a very bad shape.

Adding such tools later on in the development is like activating warnings post factum: You'll get drowned in issues.

Especially in such critical domains as file-systems I would actually expect that the developers are using "the best tools money can buy" (or at least the best OpenSource tools available).

"Still fixing bugs found by some code analyzer" doesn't sound like someone should have much trust with their data in something like ZFS, to be honest… The statement sounds actually quite scary to me.

They have very unusual license which I have never seen before: https://github.com/NASA-SW-VnV/ikos/blob/master/LICENSE.txt

Is anyone familiar with it? Is it OSI certified? (it's not on the OSI's site).

Yeah there are tools that require adding contracts as comments. But again, there are also friction-less tools that don't require any changes (for example a NASA one).