AutosarC++17_10-A4.7.1¶
An integer expression shall not lead to data loss
Required inputs: IR, StaticSemanticAnalysis
Possible Messages
Key |
Text |
Severity |
Disabled |
|---|---|---|---|
cast_overflow |
Cast on result of arithmetic computation may cause overflow |
None |
False |
cast_truncate |
Cast may truncate value |
None |
False |
cast_underflow |
Cast on result of arithmetic computation may cause underflow |
None |
False |
certain_shift_amount_negative |
Shift by a negative bit count (undefined behavior) |
None |
False |
certain_shift_amount_too_large |
Shift by the integer width or more (undefined behavior) |
None |
False |
certain_shift_right_negative |
Right shift with negative left-hand-side |
None |
False |
overflow |
Arithmetic computation may cause overflow |
None |
False |
shift_amount_negative |
Possible shift by a negative bit count (undefined behavior) |
None |
False |
shift_amount_too_large |
Possible shift by the integer width or more (undefined behavior) |
None |
False |
shift_right_negative |
Possible right shift with negative left-hand-side |
None |
False |
static_cast_overflow |
Cast on result of arithmetic computation may cause overflow |
None |
False |
static_cast_underflow |
Cast on result of arithmetic computation may cause underflow |
None |
False |
static_cast_underflow_minus_1 |
Casting -1 to an unsigned type causes underflow |
None |
False |
static_overflow |
Arithmetic computation may cause overflow |
None |
False |
static_underflow |
Arithmetic computation may cause underflow |
None |
False |
underflow |
Arithmetic computation may cause underflow |
None |
False |
unsigned_cast_overflow |
Cast on result of arithmetic computation may cause wrap-around |
None |
False |
unsigned_cast_underflow |
Cast on result of arithmetic computation may cause wrap-around (underflow) |
None |
False |
unsigned_overflow |
Arithmetic computation may cause wrap-around |
None |
False |
unsigned_underflow |
Arithmetic computation may cause wrap-around (underflow) |
None |
False |
Options¶
This rule shares the following common options: exclude_in_macros, exclude_messages_in_system_headers, excludes, extend_exclude_to_macro_invocations, includes, justification_checker, languages, post_processing, provider, report_at, severity
The following places define options that affect this rule: Stylechecks, Analysis-GlobalOptions
abstract_interpretation_maximal_tracked_array_index¶
abstract_interpretation_maximal_tracked_array_index : int = 10
The number of explicit indices in array expressions per routine tracked by the "symbolic expression analysis". For example, consider the following program.
extern signed char a[6];
int main()
{
if (a[2] < 0)
{
a[2]++;
}
if (a[3] < 0)
{
a[3]++;
}
if (a[4] < 0)
{
a[4]++;
}
return 0;
}
If the value of this option is set to 2, the first two array index expressions
encountered in the routine are tracked. Hence, the analysis can use the facts
a[2] < 0 and a[3] < 0 to infer that a[2]++
and a[3]++ do not overflow, but it will not track the third array
access in this routine.
A higher value of the option can cause more consumption of memory and time for the analysis.
abstract_interpretation_overflow¶
abstract_interpretation_overflow : bool = False
abstract_interpretation_overflow_unrolling_level¶
abstract_interpretation_overflow_unrolling_level : int = 0
check_signed¶
check_signed : bool = True
check_unsigned¶
check_unsigned : bool = True
relevant_expressions¶
relevant_expressions
Which (const / constant) expressions should be considered.Type: RelevantExpressions
Default:
'const_expressions_only'
Note: this is only relevant for the purely static parts of the analysis. The StaticSemanticAnalysis-based checks for runtime errors will be performed independently.
suppress_well_defined_findings¶
suppress_well_defined_findings
Type: SuppressionMode
Default:
'NONE'
Some overflows have well-defined semantics in all C/C++ standard
versions. The typical example is UINT_MAX+1 which is
well-defined as 0 via wraparound. This differs from
INT_MAX+1 which is either undefined or implementation-defined
depending on the considered standard version. Most CPUs will compute
INT_MIN but this wraparound is not guaranteed by any C/C++
standard.
Both cases are overflows and are reported by this rule. However, one might want to suppress messages for the well-defined cases. To suppress these activate this option.
Different C and C++ standard versions differ in what is well-defined, implementation-defined, or undefined. Luckily, if we only consider well-defined and do not discern between implementation-defined and undefined, we end up with only two groups: pre-C++20 and since-C++20.
Option Types¶
These types are used by options listed above:
RelevantExpressions¶
An enumeration.none
No (additional) checks for overflows in const-expressions or compile time constant expressions.const_expressions_only
Whether the analysis should statically check const-expressions (i.e., const variables and literals) that might have been reduced to a literal during compilation.const_and_compile_time_constant
Whether the analysis should statically check const-expressions (i.e., const variables and literals) as well as compile-time constant expressions (i.e., preprocessor defines, constexprs or literals) that might have been reduced to a literal during compilation.SuppressionMode¶
An enumeration.NONE
Suppress nothing.
PRE_CPP2020
Suppress findings that are well-defined before C++20. These are:
- Over- and underflows of unsigned integers during addition, subtraction, and multiplication
- Conversions from unsigned to unsigned integers
- Wrap-around caused by left-shifting of unsigned integer
CPP2020
Suppress findings that are well-defined since C++20. These are:
- Over- and underflows of unsigned integers during addition, subtraction, and multiplication
- Conversions between signed and unsigned integers
- Wrap-around caused by left-shifting
- Shifting negative integers
Surprising mechanics of C++20 signed narrow integers
Since C++20, casts between signed and unsigned are defined as two-complement wrap-around. Overflows of signed integers are still undefined behavior and are reported by this rule. But, due to integer promotion rules, certain expressions are computed using wider integer types, which can lead to the false impression that this is no longer the case, because no overflow findings are reported there.
Suppose, that the code is compiled on a platform where short
is smaller than or equal to half the size of an int. Very
commonly the sizes are 2 and 4. This assumption is thus true for many
platforms.
In this case, narrow signed integer types such as short or
signed char are first implicitly promoted to int
before the arithmetic operation is executed. Because of this promotion, the
actual operation does not overflow and is thus well-defined. After the
operation, an implicit cast is performed to the narrower type. This cast is
well-defined in C++20 as wrapping around.
Consider the following snippet:
static_assert(sizeof(short) == 2);
static_assert(sizeof(int) == 4);
short a = 0x1000;
short b = 0x1001;
short c = a*b;
C++20 defines c as 0x1000. The reason is that
a*b is implicitly promoted to static_cast<int>
(a)*static_cast<int>(b). After the promotion, the
multiplication does not overflow and yields a well-defined
0x1001000. This number is then implicitly cast to
0x1000 which is also a well-defined operation.
An analogous effect can be observed for signed short addition and
multiplication. Another effect is that it is well-defined to shift by up to
as many bits as int has even if the shifted integer has fewer
bits.
DERIVE_FROM_IR
Derive the language version from the IR compilation flags and suppress findings accordingly.