NoQ added a comment. In D71224#1778204 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D71224#1778204>, @xazax.hun wrote:
> I don't think this is a good enough model currently. The problem is that, it > does not play well with annotations. E.g. the checker can see a symbol > escaping, but it does not have a whole lot of information how. For example, > currently, there is no way to check if the output parameter through which the > escape happened was annotated somehow. Hmm. If the function is annotated, it is hopefully "fully" annotated, or at least the programmer doesn't mind adding more annotations to it. Given that you have your `CallEvent` structure in `checkPointerEscape`, i hope you can easily see if there are any annotations at all on the function, and if so, suppress the current escape entirely. Or at least scan the annotated parameters and suppress the escape for them. I guess it's still a problem if the *same* handle is also passed through a parameter that *cannot* be annotated (eg., as part of a structure passed into the call) and then actually getting released inside the call, but is it a real problem for you? CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D71224/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D71224 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
