|
From: Jean P. <2s...@ma...> - 2004-09-06 23:35:34
|
On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 16:27:07 -0700, Paul Pluzhnikov <pa...@pa...> wrote : > > Oops. By 'static' array, I wanted to mean a 'normal array' (as > > oppposed to dynamically allocated array). > > What you meant are arrays with automatic or static (as opposed > to dynamic) storage duration. > > > Do you know if valgrind could in theory detect this kind of problem > > too > > This has been discussed here many times before. > > The consensus appears to be that VG will never be able to reliably > catch either: > http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=7603767 > http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=8776351 > > Purify does detect (some?) static (but not automatic) array > bounds, because they insert red-zones during the link stage. > > CCured detects both, but only for C (no C++ support). Ok thanks for the information. I've looked at CCured but it seems to be quite hard to use on large projects, so I will stay with gcc bounds-checking (which does an excellent job, I wonder why it isn't more famous ?). Sorry to haven't made a search on the subject before posting... |