Skip to content
GitLab
    • GitLab: the DevOps platform
    • Explore GitLab
    • Install GitLab
    • How GitLab compares
    • Get started
    • GitLab docs
    • GitLab Learn
  • Pricing
  • Talk to an expert
  • /
  • Help
    • Help
    • Support
    • Community forum
    • Submit feedback
    • Contribute to GitLab
    • Switch to GitLab Next
    Projects Groups Snippets
  • Register
  • Sign in
  • CPAchecker CPAchecker
  • Project information
    • Project information
    • Activity
    • Labels
    • Members
  • Repository
    • Repository
    • Files
    • Commits
    • Branches
    • Tags
    • Contributors
    • Graph
    • Compare
    • Locked Files
  • Issues 410
    • Issues 410
    • List
    • Boards
    • Service Desk
    • Milestones
    • Iterations
  • Merge requests 20
    • Merge requests 20
  • CI/CD
    • CI/CD
    • Pipelines
    • Jobs
    • Schedules
    • Test Cases
  • Packages and registries
    • Packages and registries
    • Container Registry
  • Analytics
    • Analytics
    • Value stream
    • CI/CD
    • Code review
    • Insights
    • Issue
    • Repository
  • Activity
  • Graph
  • Create a new issue
  • Jobs
  • Commits
  • Issue Boards
Collapse sidebar
  • SoSy-LabSoSy-Lab
  • Software
  • CPAcheckerCPAchecker
  • Issues
  • #742
Closed
Open
Issue created Jul 10, 2020 by Thomas Lemberger@lemberger🌞Developer

PointerCPA handles structs and unions in a strange way

Currently, the PointerCPA handles struct dereferences in a special way: potential pointers to struct instances point to the struct-type declaration. This deviates from the intended behavior of the PointerCPA, that holds a map from pointers to potential pointee memory locations.

I'm not sure what the idea behind this was, but I would prefer the PointerCPA to just give no information (\top) if it is not sure what to point to. This way, no special handling would be necessary.

To upload designs, you'll need to enable LFS and have an admin enable hashed storage. More information
Assignee
Assign to
Time tracking