3 ms·

I'm curious whether any of the standard source code analysis tools would have caught this.

• Etheryte 11y ago
  I doubt it, as the buggy code wasn't nonsense in the usual sense.
  • Someone 11y ago
    But it was suspicious. Seeing 1 * sizeof(int) directly in the code, not in a macro expansion, in my book is somewhat suspicious (people could do that for symmetry in a series of similar lines of code), but whatever_count + x * sizeof(int) could easily trigger a heuristic "thou shalt not add a count and a size" The code does not even need to be smart enough to determine that "whatever_count" is used as a count; if it actually is a size, it is worth warning about, too, so a somewhat vague warning would, in my book, be fine.
    • HappyTypist 11y ago
      That makes sense. If it's not there, it's probably something that should be added.
• tomyws 11y ago
  Me to. The compiler would need to output at any optimization passes which handle multiplication factorization, which could be quite lengthy!