balazske added a comment.
More results in CodeChecker: emacs_errorreturn
<https://codechecker-demo.eastus.cloudapp.azure.com/Default/reports?run=emacs_errorreturn&review-status=Unreviewed&review-status=Confirmed%20bug&detection-status=New&detection-status=Reopened&detection-status=Unresolved>
================
Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/ErrorReturnChecker.cpp:79-80
+ bool ChildIsLHS) const override {
+ if (!KnownValue)
+ return false;
+
----------------
balazske wrote:
> balazske wrote:
> > Szelethus wrote:
> > > So if we failed to get retrieve the value we're checking against, we
> > > automatically assume that its not a proper check? Shouldn't we be
> > > conservative here? What if that value is something like `getEOFValue()`?
> > This case needs attention, now it is detected as failure (maybe the
> > function can return `Optional<bool>` to indicate a non-determinable case).
> This case is now not error.
> A test is added for this case.
> ```
> int R = fputs("str", file());
> if (R == getEOFValue())
> return;
> ```
> This is no warning now (but `getEOFValue` can return anything).
The whole function is now refactored to have better behavior.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D72705/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D72705
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
