NoQ added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/CStringChecker.cpp:127
void evalMemset(CheckerContext &C, const CallExpr *CE) const;
+ void evalExplicitBzero(CheckerContext &C, const CallExpr *CE) const;
----------------
I guess let's do just `evalBzero`?
================
Comment at: test/Analysis/string.c:1405-1406
+ clang_analyzer_eval(strlen(str) == 4); // expected-warning{{TRUE}}
+ bzero(str + 2, 2);
+ clang_analyzer_eval(strlen(str) == 0); // expected-warning{{FALSE}}
+}
----------------
Let's also add the true statement. I.e., do we know here that the actual length
is 2?
================
Comment at: test/Analysis/string.c:1424
+
+#ifdef SUPPRESS_OUT_OF_BOUND
+void explicit_bzero3_out_ofbound() {
----------------
You can hide `exected-warning`s under `#ifdef`s while leaving the rest of the
test intact. Eg.,
```
x = 0;
y = 1 / x;
#ifdef CHECK_DIVIDE_ZERO
// expected-warning@-2{{Division by zero}}
#endif
```
It would be cool to see how this test performs without suppressing out-of-bound
warnings.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D54592/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D54592
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
