steakhal added a comment. In D130974#3709502 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D130974#3709502>, @isuckatcs wrote:
>> Some checker should have caught the uninitialized value earlier than the >> defaultEvalCall(). >> I guess, the MallocCkecher could have checked for it in PreStmt<CXXNewExpr>. >> Or alternatively, the CallAndMessageChecker::preCall() already does >> something like this in the PreVisitProcessArg(). I know that CXXNewExpr is >> not a call, but you get the idea. >> WDYT, worth catching it? > > I definitely think it's worth catching it. I'm working on a checker which > addresses this in D131299 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D131299>. It was > originally intended to be a part of MallocChecker but has been moved to a > separate one. If so, shouldn't be some dependencies across these revisions? You could also specify an additional RUN line to demonstrate that this can be caught by an experimental configuration. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D130974/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D130974 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
