DerWaschbar added a comment.
In D79437#2052109 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D79437#2052109>, @aaron.ballman
wrote:
> Thank you for working on this check, I think it's useful functionality. One
> concern I have, though, is that it's not flow-sensitive and should probably
> be implemented as a clang static analyzer check instead of a clang-tidy
> check. For instance, consider these three plausible issues:
>
> // This only sets the offset on one code path.
> void func(FILE *fp) {
> fpos_t offset;
> if (condition) {
> // ... code
> if (0 != fgetpos(fp, &offset))
> return;
> // ... code
> } else {
> // ... code
> }
> fsetpos(fp, &offset);
> }
>
> // This doesn't check the failure from getting the position and sets the
> position regardless.
> void func(FILE *fp) {
> fpos_t offset;
> fgetpos(fp, &offset);
> // ... code
> fsetpos(fp, &offset);
> }
>
> // This function accepts the offset from the caller but the caller passes
> an invalid offset.
> void func(FILE *fp, const fpos_t *offset) {
> fsetpos(fp, offset);
> }
> void caller(FILE *fp) {
> fpos_t offset;
> func(fp, &offset);
> }
>
>
> Have you considered writing a static analyzer check so you can do data and
> control flow analysis to catch issues like these?
I have noticed those issues too, but most likely the getter/setter will be in
the same function body and we could measure fast how common is that issue in
the wild. Also, this was my first introductory project for Clang and with that,
I can rewrite this as a Static Analyzer project or start working on another
Clang-Tidy project.
Repository:
rCTE Clang Tools Extra
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D79437/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D79437
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
