On the Validated Usage of the C++ Standard Template Library

Babati, Bence; Horväth, Gábor; Pataki, Norbert; Páter-Részeg, Attila

doi:10.1145/3351556.3351570

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We compared different methods of validating STL usage, including metaprogramming, run-time checks, and static analysis [3]. There is no clear winner; each method has its tradeoffs.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Static Analyses for C++ in the Presence of Separate Compilation

Horváth¹

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

List of Figures vi List of Tables viiiListings ix for all their care and help. From time to time, my friends helped me escape from my research, which made me more productive and focused upon return.I also want to thank everyone who helped me with their technical expertise, especially my supervisor, Norbert Pataki, who started counseling me during my BSc studies. His counsel was indispensable for completing my dissertation, and it made Chapter 2 possible. I am thankful for my former employers and colleagues who were very supportive in allowing me to continue my research and inspired me for new problems to study. My special thanks go to Zoltán Porkoláb, Dániel Krupp, Gábor Márton, and the whole CodeChecker team at Ericsson. I could not have completed Chapter 4 and Chapter 6 without them. Moreover, I am beholden to Artem Dergachev and Aleksei Sidorin, who laid the first stepping stones for the cross translation unit analysis that is discussed in Chapter 4.Besides, I am thankful to all my co-authors, the participants of ELTE's Software Technology Laboratory, and the students who chose me as their thesis advisor. They all contributed a significant amount of work to my studies. Contributions from Réka Kovács, Péter Szécsi, Kristóf Umann, Richárd Szalay, and Barnabás Bittner were exceeding all expectations.Furthermore, I am grateful for my Google Summer of Code mentor, Ted Kremenek, who counseled me while I was implementing textual summaries for Clang discussed in Chapter 5. His insights were invaluable.Additionally, I want to thank Herb Sutter, Kyle Reed from Microsoft, and Matthias Gehre from Silexica for all their contributions to Chapter 3. My work was based on Herb's paper, while the implementation was built on top of Matthias' initial version. Kyle was working on another implementation of the lifetime analysis for the MSVC toolchain and helped my work with his insightful feedback.Finally, I am indebted to Fuchsia's toolchain team and some other engineers at Google, including Petr Hosek and Dmitri Gribenko. Petr made it possible for me to continue my research during my internship at Google. Dmitri was an enormous help in upstreaming some of the work I did on lifetime analysis.

show abstract

“…We compared different methods of validating STL usage, including metaprogramming, run-time checks, and static analysis [3]. There is no clear winner; each method has its tradeoffs.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Static Analyses for C++ in the Presence of Separate Compilation

Horváth¹

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A harmadik tézis az első két tézisben kidolgozott módszereket alkalmazza a formális szoftverfejlesztés egyes problémáinak megoldására: Az 5. fejezet a metaprogramozás segítségével alkotja meg az alapvető programkonstrukciók levezetési szabályait és a klasszikus logika egyes bizonyítási sémáit [32]. A 6. és 7. fejezetek a dinamikus memóriakezelést és mutatókat [37], valamint tárolókat és bejárókat [38,39] használó programok levezetésével foglalkoznak. A tézis eredményei:…”

Section: A Dolgozat Eredményeiunclassified

Programhelyesség- bizonyítás fordítási időben

Dévai¹

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Correctly, 1 should be printed. std::cout << s.count ( 3 ); // prints 0 in spite of it is contained This phenonmenon is weird, the root cause is hard to find. Compilers should emit error (or warning at least) diagnostics, but the problem is not detected at all.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is open source and based on the LLVM compiler infrastructure. It is mainly developed by the community, there are many contributors, also it is supported by big companies as well [3].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%