> You're only commenting on your personal belief of how your ideal static analyzer would magically work to meet your expectations.
This is how sound static analyzers are advertised.
> This doesn't correspond to how static analyzers work in reality.
Of course it does not, since a normal static analyzer is not sound. However, a sound static analyzer is sound.
> Unless you can point out a static code analyzer which performs the sort of check that complies with your personal beliefs, it will remain firmly in the realm of practical impossibility.
I already did (and explained that while I have yet to use it, NIST did a positive review). Until you learn better reading comprehension, you will never see it. Here is a hint. Look 6 comments up.
> C is now what? 5 decades old? Wouldn't that be enough time for anyone to roll that out if it was in fact feasible?
The theory was made 5 decades ago:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_interpretation
It has already been rolled out in aviation, nuclear power, etcetera. Even NASA is using an implementation of it:
https://www.nasa.gov/content/tech/rse/research/ikos
You, like myself a few months ago, had never heard of it. However, when was the last time you seriously looked for something like this? I have been making a major push to resolve all static analysis reports from Coverity, Clang and others in OpenZFS. I found it when looking into additional static analyzers. If it were not for that, I would still be entirely unaware.
That being said, you have a clear reading comprehension issue, since I already provided links showing that NASA has deployed software implementing that theory and NIST did a positive review of software implementing it. It is absurd to read that and think “this is not feasible”.