baloghadamsoftware marked an inline comment as done.
baloghadamsoftware added inline comments.
================
Comment at:
clang/include/clang/StaticAnalyzer/Core/PathSensitive/MemRegion.h:1044
+class ParamWithoutVarRegion : public TypedValueRegion {
+ friend class MemRegionManager;
----------------
baloghadamsoftware wrote:
> baloghadamsoftware wrote:
> > NoQ wrote:
> > > There should be only one way to express the parameter region. Let's call
> > > this one simply `ParamRegion` or something like that, and
> > > `assert(!isa<ParmVarDecl>(D))` in the constructor of `VarRegion`.
> > Do you mean that we should use `ParamRegion` in every case, thus also when
> > we have the definitioan for the function? I wonder whether it breaks too
> > many things.
> This will surely not work. The common handling of `ParamVarDecl` and
> `VarDecl` is soo deeply rooted in the whole analyzer that separating them
> means creation of a totally new analyzer engine from scratch.
More specifically: whenever a function is inlined, its parameters are used as
variables via `DeclRefExpr`s. A `DeclRefExpr` refers to a `Decl` which is a
`ParamVarDecl` but that has reference neither for the `CallExpr` (since it is
not related to the call, but to the `FunctionDecl` or `ObjCMethodDecl`) nore
for its `Index` in the call. The former is the real problem that cannot be
solved even on theoretical level: a function which is inlined cannot depend on
the different `CallExpr`s where it is called. Even worse, if the function is
analyzed top-level it has not `CallExpr` at all so using `ParamRegion` for its
parameters is completely impossible.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D77229/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D77229
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
