Szelethus added reviewers: NoQ, vsavchenko.
Szelethus added a comment.
Looks like a neat checker! I guess the only question is the function matching,
and I don't dislike it in its current state. @martong, do you have any thoughts
on this?
On another note, have you checked this on some projects yet? I expect that we
might need to tone down on some of the functions if this ends up being too
noisy.
================
Comment at:
clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/UncheckedReturnValueChecker.cpp:66-67
+ continue;
+ if (!FD->isInStdNamespace() && !isInNoNamespace(FD))
+ continue;
+
----------------
I suppose we need this to compensate for the fact that we can't reliably match
on standard C functions. Unfortunately, using `CallDescription` wouldn't
necessarily solve this: D81745.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/UncheckedReturnValueChecker.cpp:85
+private:
+ llvm::StringMap<int> FunctionsToCheck = {
+ {"aligned_alloc", 2}, {"asctime_s", 3}, {"at_quick_exit", 1},
----------------
balazske wrote:
> baloghadamsoftware wrote:
> > Hmm, why `StringMap<>`? Why not `CallDescriptionMap<>`?
> `CallDescriptionMap` is only usable with `CallEvent` that is not used in this
> checker. Or it can be extended with lookup from `FunctionDecl`?
Good point. @martong, you have used `FunctionDecl` based checking, do you have
any thoughts here?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D90691/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D90691
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
