RedDocMD added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/SmartPtrModeling.cpp:275
+ return false;
+ const auto *Decl = Call.getDecl();
+ if (!Decl)
----------------
xazax.hun wrote:
> Can we model a function call without a declaration? I wonder if we should
> make this check more eagerly in `evalCall`.
I think it is not that there is no Decl, but it is more likely the Decl is not
available at that time.
```
void foo(void (*bar)(bool, bool)) {
bar();
}
```
If just foo is analyzed, then there is no Decl.
If a call to foo is analyzed, then there is a Decl.
That said, I think the check can be done in `evalCall` itself. I don't think it
will cause a problem.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/SmartPtrModeling.cpp:291
// we can try this function
- if (Call.getNumArgs() == 2 &&
- Call.getDecl()->getDeclContext()->isStdNamespace())
- if (smartptr::isStdSmartPtr(Call.getArgExpr(0)) ||
- smartptr::isStdSmartPtr(Call.getArgExpr(1)))
- if (handleComparisionOp(Call, C))
- return true;
-
- if (isStdOstreamOperatorCall(Call))
+ if (ModelSmartPtrDereference && isPotentiallyComparisionOpCall(Call))
+ if (handleComparisionOp(Call, C))
----------------
xazax.hun wrote:
> I'd prefer not repeating the `ModelSmartPtrDereference` check.
I don't think we can do that, since the `isBoolConversion()` check has a branch
which is executed when `ModelSmartPtrDereference` is false.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D106296/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D106296
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
