2 ms·
I'd be really really surprised they didn't run this through static analysis. I will, to be honest, then maybe people are right about "it's stupid they make such
by yeukhon 13y ago
I'd be really really surprised they didn't run this through static analysis. I will, to be honest, then maybe people are right about "it's stupid they make such stupid mistake."
I am not familiar with running static analysis and looking output, only did very minimal undefined behavior santisizer detection.
- bsdetector 13y agoI haven't been keeping up, but a year ago Google wasn't using any static analyzer at all on Chrome. They didn't use a real memory access checker like valgrind even to load a blank page, although they came up with a weaker memcheck that mostly works. Lax development is par for the course at these mega corps.
- Nitramp 13y agoI cannot comment on Chrome itself, but internal C++ development at Google has a pretty comprehensive array of checks, both static and dynamic.
- asvitkine 13y agoWe've been using valgrind bots for a long time on the Chromium project - certainly for much longer than a year. For example, according to the Wayback Machine, our sites page had an entry about it since 2009: http://web.archive.org/web/20091123132855/http://www.chromium.org/developers/how-tos/using-valgrind http://web.archive.org/web/20091123132855/http://www.chromiu...
- bsdetector 13y agoI was thinking of this: http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/mw2sn/googles_adresssanitizer_a_fast_memory_error/c34cn0r http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/mw2sn/googles_a...