Szelethus added a comment. Also, thank you guys for chipping in!
================ Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/StreamChecker.cpp:394 + StreamSym, StreamState::getOpenedWithOtherError()); + C.addTransition(StateEof); + C.addTransition(StateOther); ---------------- balazske wrote: > baloghadamsoftware wrote: > > xazax.hun wrote: > > > As you probably know we are splitting the execution paths here. This will > > > potentially result in doubling the analysis tome for a function for each > > > `feof` call. Since state splits can be really bad for performance we need > > > good justification for each of them. > > > So the questions are: > > > * Is it really important to differentiate between eof and other error or > > > is it possible to just have an any error state? > > > * Do we find more bugs in real world code that justifies these state > > > splits? > > I agree here. Do not introduce such forks without specific reason. > `feof` and `ferror` should return the same value if called multiple times > (and no other file operations in between). If the exact error is not saved in > the state, how can we ensure that the calls return the same value? This is a very interesting question indeed, never crossed my mind before. I think it would be better to move `AnyError` to the next revision and discuss it there. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D75682/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D75682 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
