How can elusive 64-bit portability issues be detected?

Question

I found a snippet similar to this in some (C++) code I'm preparing for a 64-bit port.

int n;
size_t pos, npos;

/* ... initialization ... */

while((pos = find(ch, start)) != npos)
{
    /* ... advance start position ... */

    n++; // this will overflow if the loop iterates too many times
}

While I seriously doubt this would actually cause a problem in even memory-intensive applications, it's worth looking at from a theoretical standpoint because similar errors could surface that will cause problems. (Change n to a short in the above example and even small files could overflow the counter.)

Static analysis tools are useful, but they can't detect this kind of error directly. (Not yet, anyway.) The counter n doesn't participate in the while expression at all, so this isn't as simple as other loops (where typecasting errors give the error away). Any tool would need to determine that the loop would execute more than 2³¹ times, but that means it needs to be able to estimate how many times the expression (pos = find(ch, start)) != npos will evaluate as true—no small feat! Even if a tool could determine that the loop could execute more than 2³¹ times (say, because it recognizes the find function is working on a string), how could it know that the loop won't execute more than 2⁶⁴ times, overflowing a size_t value, too?

It seems clear that to conclusively identify and fix this kind of error requires a human eye, but are there patterns that give away this kind of error so it can be manually inspected? What similar errors exist that I should be watchful for?

EDIT 1: Since short, int and long types are inherently problematic, this kind of error could be found by examining every instance of those types. However, given their ubiquity in legacy C++ code, I'm not sure this is practical for a large piece of software. What else gives away this error? Is each while loop likely to exhibit some kind of error like this? (for loops certainly aren't immune to it!) How bad is this kind of error if we're not dealing with 16-bit types like short?

EDIT 2: Here's another example, showing how this error appears in a for loop.

int i = 0;
for (iter = c.begin(); iter != c.end(); iter++, i++)
{
    /* ... */
}

It's fundamentally the same problem: loops are counting on some variable that never directly interacts with a wider type. The variable can still overflow, but no compiler or tool detects a casting error. (Strictly speaking, there is none.)

EDIT 3: The code I'm working with is very large. (10-15 million lines of code for C++ alone.) It's infeasible to inspect all of it, so I'm specifically interested in ways to identify this sort of problem (even if it results in a high false-positive rate) automatically.

Answer 1

Code reviews. Get a bunch of smart people looking at the code.

Use of short, int, or long is a warning sign, because the range of these types isn't defined in the standard. Most usage should be changed to the new int_fastN_t types in <stdint.h>, usage dealing with serialization to intN_t. Well, actually these <stdint.h> types should be used to typedef new application-specific types.

This example really ought to be:

typedef int_fast32_t linecount_appt;
linecount_appt n;

This expresses a design assumption that linecount fits in 32 bits, and also makes it easy to fix the code if the design requirements change.

Answer 2

Its clear what you need is a smart "range" analyzer tool to determine what the range of values are that are computed vs the type in which those values are being stored. (Your fundamental objection is to that smart range analyzer being a person). You might need some additional code annotations (manually well-placed typedefs or assertions that provide explicit range constraints) to enable a good analysis, and to handle otherwise apparantly arbitrarily large user input.

You'd need special checks to handle the place where C/C++ says the arithmetic is legal but dumb (e.g., assumption that you don't want [twos complement] overflows). For your n++ example, (equivalent to n_after=n_before+1), n_before can be 2^31-1 (because of your observations about strings), so n_before+1 can be 2^32 which is overflow. (I think standard C/C++ semantics says that overflow to -0 without complaint is OK).

Our DMS Software Reengineering Toolkit in fact has range analysis machinery built in... but it is not presently connected to the DMS's C++ front end; we can only peddle so fast :-{ [We have used it on COBOL programs for different problems involving ranges].

In the absence of such range analysis, you could probably detect the existing of loops with such dependent flows; the value of n clearly depends on the loop count. I suspect this would get you every loop in the program that had a side effect, which might not be that much help.

Another poster suggests somehow redeclaring all the int-like declarations using application specific types (e.g., *linecount_appt*) and then typedef'ing those to value that work for your application. To do this, I'd think you'd have to classify each int-like declaration into categories (e.g., "these declarations are all *linecount_appt*"). Doing this by manual inspection for 10M SLOC seems pretty hard and very error prone. Finding all declarations which receive (by assignment) values from the "same" value sources might be a way to get hints about where such application types are. You'd want to be able to mechanically find such groups of declarations, and then have some tool automatically replace the actual declarations with a designated application type (e.g., *linecount_appt*). This is likely somewhat easier than doing precise range analysis.