steakhal added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/BugReporter.cpp:2363
+ for (SymbolRef SubSym : SubSyms) {
+ if (SymbolData::classof(SubSym)) {
+ if (auto MaybeTK = TryToLookupTrackingKind(SubSym))
----------------
I think this is the superior way of checking this.
================
Comment at: clang/test/Analysis/taint-diagnostic-visitor.c:36
scanf("%d", &x); // expected-note {{Value assigned to 'x'}}
- // expected-note@-1 {{Taint originated here}}
+ // expected-note@-1 {{Taint originated here}}
expected-note@-1 {{Propagated taint to the 2nd parameter}}
int vla[x]; // expected-warning {{Declared variable-length array (VLA) has
tainted size}}
----------------
If we emit a specific note-tag, we definitely shouldn't emit a `Taint
originated here` note.
I think in my original patch stack I did actually remove the archaic visitor
producing this since the propagation note tags completely supersedes that
approach.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D125225/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D125225
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
