NoQ added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/InnerPointerChecker.cpp:192
- if (Call.isCalled(CStrFn) || Call.isCalled(DataFn)) {
- SVal RawPtr = Call.getReturnValue();
- if (SymbolRef Sym = RawPtr.getAsSymbol(/*IncludeBaseRegions=*/true)) {
- // Start tracking this raw pointer by adding it to the set of symbols
- // associated with this container object in the program state map.
- PtrSet::Factory &F = State->getStateManager().get_context<PtrSet>();
- const PtrSet *SetPtr = State->get<RawPtrMap>(ObjRegion);
- PtrSet Set = SetPtr ? *SetPtr : F.getEmptySet();
- assert(C.wasInlined || !Set.contains(Sym));
- Set = F.add(Set, Sym);
- State = State->set<RawPtrMap>(ObjRegion, Set);
- C.addTransition(State);
+ SVal Arg = FC->getArgSVal(ArgI);
+ const auto *ArgRegion =
----------------
rnkovacs wrote:
> NoQ wrote:
> > xazax.hun wrote:
> > > While I cannot recall examples in the STL the number of arguments and
> > > parameters might differ. We might have ellipsis in the parameters and
> > > this way we may pass more arguments. Since we do not have the parameter
> > > type for this case, I think it is ok to not handle it. But it might be
> > > worth to have a comment. The other case, when we have default arguments.
> > > I do not really know how the analyzer behaves with default arguments but
> > > maybe it would be worth to add a test case to ensure we do not crash on
> > > that?
> > The analyzer behaves pretty badly with default arguments; we don't really
> > model them unless they are like plain integer literals. But that's not an
> > issue here because a default parameter/argument is still both a parameter
> > and an argument (where the argument expression takes the form of
> > `CXXDefaultArgExpr`).
> Hm, it seems that passing objects of non-trivial types like `std::string` to
> a variadic function is implementation defined, and for `clang 6.0`, this
> means that it does not compile (does compile with `gcc 8.1` though, [[
> https://godbolt.org/g/C3MCtV | example ]]).
>
> Added a test for the default parameter case.
Yup, that's correct; i noticed it a few days ago too in
https://reviews.llvm.org/D49443#1170831.
You can disable the warning/error with `-Wno-non-pod-varargs` for the purposes
of testing, but you anyway won't be able to obtain the AST you'll want to test,
so i don't think this requires a test.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D49656
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
