Szelethus added a comment. In D108695#2967540 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D108695#2967540>, @NoQ wrote:
> Would this work correctly when the property is changed but then reverted to > its original state? This probably can't happen to MallocChecker (what has > been freed cannot be unfreed) but it may happen to eg. PthreadLockChecker or > to, well, Stores. In such cases it would be incorrect to say "returning > without changing the state". It should! But you have a point, I don't have the code to prove it right away. Maybe if I factored out the symbol part into NoStateChangeToSymbolVisitor, as teased in D105553#2864318 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D105553#2864318>, it'd have an easier time to see it. With that said, I don't currently see how the current implementation would be faulty, but even if it is, the patch adds an option, and doesn't the take old one (that NoStoreFuncVisitor still uses) away. ================ Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/BugReporterVisitors.cpp:370 + while (N && !N->getLocationAs<CallExitEnd>()) + N = N->getFirstSucc(); + return N; ---------------- NoQ wrote: > This is the right successor because we're in a heavily trimmed exploded > graph, right? Should be, yes. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D108695/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D108695 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
