Skip to content

Conversation

@NlightNFotis
Copy link
Contributor

This is addressing a review comment on #8093 and provides a message outlining the level of default checks applied at tool invocation.

Comment on lines +125 to +147

if(enabled)
{
log.status() << "Running with --standard-checks on: "
<< "bounds-check, pointer-check, pointer-primitive-check, "
"div-by-zero-check, "
<< "signed-overflow-check, undefined-shift-check and "
"unwinding-assertions are"
<< "**on** by default for this analysis run.\n"
<< messaget::eom;
;
}
else
{ // enabled == false
log.status() << "Running with --no-standard-checks on: "
<< "bounds-check, pointer-check, pointer-primitive-check, "
"div-by-zero-check, "
<< "signed-overflow-check, undefined-shift-check and "
"unwinding-assertions are "
<< "**off** by default for this analysis run.\n"
<< messaget::eom;
;
}
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Could we perhaps do better in the sense that we log the checks that are actually on, rather than just listing the defaults. That is, IMHO --no-standard-checks --pointer-check should produce an output different from the above.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, the intention was to list the checks that are actually enabled.

@kroening
Copy link
Collaborator

May I suggest to reduce the verbosity level. There is diminishing return from more output when the attention of a human operator is limited.

@NlightNFotis
Copy link
Contributor Author

Closing this as I lack the bandwidth to revive/see this through.

If anyone wants to shepherd this in, feel free to re-open or to use the branch as the basis for a separate PR. Thanks for your time.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants