Closed langston-barrett closed 1 year ago
Tested against the regular test suite - the new ntu-uaf test failed, but I didn't see a difference when I compared the pointer analysis output line-for-line against the most recent and first commit of cczlyer++.
Whoops, found a bug in my comparison script. Making this a draft until I fix that and find out why the UAF test is failing.
Actually, it looks like this is a problem on main
: https://github.com/GaloisInc/MATE/issues/56
This works after rebasing onto #57 and upgrading to cclyzer++ v0.3!
Does this need further review here @langston-barrett ? Or in cclyzer++'s repo?
@thinkmoore I'm happy with whatever level of review you deem suitable. From highest-level to lowest, you might consider looikng at:
I looked through all of the changed files etc via the merged PR list. All look reasonable to me assuming cclyzer++ and MATE tests pass. One minor question: https://github.com/GaloisInc/cclyzerpp/pull/85 removes the subset and unification together build target---don't we use that for testing?
One minor question: https://github.com/GaloisInc/cclyzerpp/pull/85 removes the subset and unification together build target---don't we use that for testing?
Good question - we use the debug
target, which also has both analyses. That target had both analyses and also output only the analysis relations.
Just to stay up-to-date.
See https://github.com/GaloisInc/cclyzerpp/releases/tag/v0.2
Tested against the regular test suite - the new
ntu-uaf
test failed, but I didn't see a difference when I compared the pointer analysis output line-for-line against the most recent and first commit of cczlyer++. @thinkmoore can you run the tests and see if they pass or fail for you?