nickdesaulniers added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Analysis/UninitializedValues.cpp:651
+ continue;
+ for (const auto &label : as->labels()) {
+ const LabelStmt *ls = label->getLabel()->getStmt();
----------------
Is this more concise with `llvm::any_of`?
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Analysis/UninitializedValues.cpp:856
if (!as->isAsmGoto())
return;
----------------
Should we mark the vals `MayUninitialized` here, rather than below? Then I
think we can remove the `isAsmGoto` check you added in `getUninitUse`?
================
Comment at: clang/test/Analysis/uninit-asm-goto.cpp:16
+ if (x < 42)
+ asm volatile goto("testl %0, %0; testl %1, %2; jne %l3" : "+S"(x), "+D"(y)
: "r"(x) :: indirect_1, indirect_2);
+ else
----------------
I wonder if it's straight forward to make this a "maybe uninitialized" warning,
instead of "is uninitialized?" Consider the inline asm:
```
asm volatile goto("ja %l1; mov %0, 42" : "=r"(foo) ::: bar);
```
Since we can't introspect the inline asm, we're not sure whether `foo` gets
initialized by the asm or not (as the asm could transfer control flow back to
the C label before any assignments to the output). Telling the user it's
definitely uninitialized is technically correct in this case, but definitely
incorrect for:
```
asm volatile goto("mov %0, 42; ja %l1;" : "=r"(foo) ::: bar);
```
================
Comment at: clang/test/Analysis/uninit-asm-goto.cpp:38
+ return 0;
+}
----------------
Are we able to catch backwards branches from `asm goto`? (if so, would you mind
please added that as an additional unit test).
```
int foo;
goto 1;
2:
return foo; // should warn?
1:
asm goto ("": "=r"(foo):::2);
return foo;
```
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D71314/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D71314
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
