vsavchenko added a comment. In D104136#2823834 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D104136#2823834>, @Szelethus wrote:
> Aha, alright! So the tracker tracked back to where the tracked expression got > computed in node `N`, which is the return value of some identity function. > Unless its explicitly told that there is a link in between the return value > and the parameter, the tracker can't figure this out that it could track > further (why would it, right?). So it asks its handlers whether they want to > do anything with `N`, which `IdentityHandler` does -- it digs out the node > where the parameter was evaluated, and tells the tracker to go on with that. > Awesome! That's exactly it! > I guess we could put `IdentityHandler` in an anonymous namespace? Sure thing! ================ Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/RetainCountChecker/RetainCountChecker.cpp:945-947 + ExprEngine &Eng = C.getStateManager().getOwningEngine(); + // Let's mark this place with a special tag. + Tag = Eng.getDataTags().make<IdentityTag>(CE, BindReturnTo); ---------------- Szelethus wrote: > I don't know ObjC at all, but is this identity obvious? Do you not need a > `NoteTag` to say that "Foo is an identity function, its return value equals > the parameter"? Or, in the possession of the actual `PathSensitiveBugReport` > that you can retrieve in the handler, you could drop a note there, maybe? These are usually some type of casts. And we already provide notes when this value gets into some other region (like `'newPtr' initialized to the value of 'originalPtr'`). I think that they are enough. And if we want something better, I think we need to tweak that messaging (`StoreHandler` now allows that) instead of crowding user with even more notes. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D104136/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D104136 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
