steakhal planned changes to this revision.
steakhal marked an inline comment as done.
steakhal added a comment.
I'm going to check how the notes look like on real code.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/StackAddrEscapeChecker.cpp:397-399
+ Report->addNote("The temporary object gets destroyed at the end of the "
+ "full expression",
+ L);
----------------
I'm actually not sure about this. We the `genName()` returns the appropriate
`SourceRange` for `CXXTempObject`s, which will be added to the bug report
regardless. That might be enough. I'm going to check that.
================
Comment at: clang/test/Analysis/copy-elision.cpp:400-419
+struct Foo {
+ Foo(Foo **q) {
+ *q = this;
+ }
+};
+
+Foo make1(Foo **r) {
----------------
I'm going to move this somewhere else.
Probably outside of the namespace `address_vector_tests` to the end of this
file.
================
Comment at: clang/test/Analysis/copy-elision.cpp:195
+ // expected-warning@-1 {{Address of stack memory associated with local \
+variable 'c' is still referred to by the stack variable 'v' upon returning \
+to the caller}}
----------------
martong wrote:
> It would be useful to have a test with `// RUN: -analyzer-output=text \` to
> make sure that we have a note placed for `v` at `consume(make3(v))`. Do we
> have such a note? This could be done perhaps in another test file.
I could do that, but we should consider the size of the test file.
The notes will duplicate each `expected-warning` and add even more besides
those.
Should I add them to this file or to another test file covering the same?
If we decide to have that I think it would be valuable to do that in a
follow-up patch IMO.
The size of this is already hitting the limit.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D107078/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D107078
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
