xazax.hun added a comment. In D71224#1778231 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D71224#1778231>, @NoQ wrote:
> 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? Yeah, this was one of my idea as well. I think one of my main concerns is that I would except the majority of the escapes are simply being output parameters and only a minority are legitimate. So I was wondering if we got the default right. Maybe a checker should do more work to get the escaping rather than more work preventing it? 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
