NoQ added a comment.
> In D107078#2933682 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D107078#2933682>, @NoQ wrote:
>
>> In D107078#2927899 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D107078#2927899>, @steakhal
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I did not fix the extra blue 'bubble' note issue, and I think that is out
>>> of the scope of this patch.
>>
>> This is an on-by-default checker. We should not knowingly regress it, even
>> if temporarily.
>
> I'm not exactly sure what would I regress, but to be on the safe side I won't
> emit any extra notes this time.
Yup that's what i meant, you can't introduce a note and address problems with
it in a follow-up patch; it should be either fully addressed immediately or go
under a flag until fixed. I think we're good now that the note is not there.
I think i see one bug in the code but other than that i think we're good to go.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/StackAddrEscapeChecker.cpp:325-326
+ if (ReferrerMemSpace && ReferredMemSpace) {
+ if (ReferredFrame == PoppedFrame &&
+ ReferrerFrame->isParentOf(PoppedFrame)) {
+ V.emplace_back(Referrer, Referred);
----------------
You probably meant `||`?
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
