NoQ added a comment.
In D108808#2968721 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D108808#2968721>, @whisperity
wrote:
> What happens for something like the following? Maybe it's also worth a test
> case?
>
> bool wait_analogue_pin(volatile int* address, int threshold) {
> while (*address < threshold) {}
> return true;
> }
These checkers dodge these cases by noticing that a loop condition relying on
pointer-type variables, regardless of volatileness, may potentially alias with
other things in the program and therefore be mutated at any moment without us
noticing. The problem with concrete addresses wasn't that the check didn't know
pointers cause problems, but that there weren't any variables in the expression
to pay attention to. So I taught this sub-system to recognize these
non-variables.
Banning pointer defererence operations entirely may still be a nicer solution
that'd also allow us to simplify some code. I'll take a look.
Repository:
rCTE Clang Tools Extra
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D108808/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D108808
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
