pgousseau added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/CStringChecker.cpp:843
@@ +842,3 @@
+ if (!Length)
+ return true;
+
----------------
dcoughlin wrote:
> There doesn't seem to be a test that cares about this returning true (as
> compared to false).
Will add thanks, f263 was the test meant for it.
================
Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/CStringChecker.cpp:855
@@ +854,3 @@
+ if (!BufLoc)
+ return true;
+
----------------
dcoughlin wrote:
> There doesn't appear to be a test that cares about this returning true (as
> compared to false).
Will add thanks, f34 was the test meant for it.
================
Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/CStringChecker.cpp:863
@@ +862,3 @@
+ if (!R)
+ return true;
+
----------------
dcoughlin wrote:
> What's the rationale for treating the array access as in-bounds if the BufEnd
> is unknown? Or if LengthValue is unknown? Should these branches return false?
> Either way, can you add a comment explaining why this is the right thing to
> do and also update the doc comment of IsFirstBufInBound to reflect this
> behavior (e.g., "Returns true if destination buffer of copy function must/may
> be in bound")
Yes I mean to return true in the case of an unknown array access to not warn on
unknown state, will add comment thanks.
================
Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/RegionStore.cpp:1109
@@ +1108,3 @@
+ }
+ assert(RO.getOffset() >= 0 && "Offset should not be negative");
+ uint64_t LowerOffset = RO.getOffset();
----------------
dcoughlin wrote:
> This assertion is triggering on our internal build bots. I'm working to get a
> reduced test case.
I can replace the assert by an if statement meanwhile ?
================
Comment at: test/Analysis/pr22954.c:739
@@ +738,3 @@
+// Test tainted values.
+struct yy {
+ char s1[4];
----------------
dcoughlin wrote:
> A question: how does this test tainted values?
Yes this comment is wrong, this is not testing tainted values. Will change
comment and description thanks.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D12571
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
