Szelethus added inline comments.
Herald added a subscriber: manas.
================
Comment at:
clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/StdLibraryFunctionsChecker.cpp:156-157
// the bug is reported.
- virtual std::string describe(ProgramStateRef State,
+ virtual std::string describe(DescritptionKind DK, ProgramStateRef State,
const Summary &Summary) const {
// There are some descendant classes that are not used as argument
----------------
How about we turn this into a print-like function and instead of returning with
a string, we take an `llvm::raw_ostream` object as argument? `SmallString` +
`raw_svector_stream` is how we construct most of our checker message strings.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/StdLibraryFunctionsChecker.cpp:857
+ if (BR.isInteresting(ArgSVal))
+ OS << Msg;
+ }));
----------------
steakhal wrote:
> Ah, there is a slight issue.
> You should mark some stuff interesting here, to make this interestingness
> propagate back transitively.
>
> Let's say `ArgSVal` is `x + y` which is considered to be out of range
> `[42,52]`. We should mark both `x` and `y` interesting because they
> themselves could have been constrained by the StdLibChecker previously. So,
> they must be interesting as well.
>
> On the same token, IMO `PathSensitiveBugReport::markInteresting(symbol)`
> should be //transitive//. So that all `SymbolData` in that symbolic
> expression tree are considered interesting. What do you think @NoQ?
> If we were doing this, @martong - you could simply acquire the assumption
> you constructed for the given `ValueConstraint`, and mark that interesting.
> Then all `SymbolData`s on both sides of the logic operator would become
> implicitly interesting.
>On the same token, IMO PathSensitiveBugReport::markInteresting(symbol) should
>be transitive. So that all SymbolData in that symbolic expression tree are
>considered interesting. What do you think @NoQ?
Thats how I'd expect this to work. This shouldn't be a burden on the checker
developer (certainly not this kind of a checker), but rather be handled by
`PathSensitiveBugReport`.
So I think this is fine as it is.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D101526/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D101526
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
