zaks.anna added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/StdLibraryFunctionsChecker.cpp:191
@@ +190,3 @@
+ // impossible to verify this precisely, but at least
+ // this check avoids potential crashes.
+ bool matchesCall(const CallExpr *CE) const;
----------------
Do we need to talk about crashes when describing what this does?
Also, please, use oxygen throughout.
================
Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/StdLibraryFunctionsChecker.cpp:205
@@ +204,3 @@
+ }
+ static QualType getArgType(const CallEvent &Call, ArgNoTy ArgNo) {
+ return ArgNo == Ret ? Call.getResultType().getCanonicalType()
----------------
We could either provide these APIs in CallEvent or at least have variants that
return canonical types. Maybe we already do some of that?
================
Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/StdLibraryFunctionsChecker.cpp:445
@@ +444,3 @@
+
+ const FunctionSpecTy &Spec = FSMI->second;
+ if (!Spec.matchesCall(CE))
----------------
When can this go wrong? Are we checking if there is a mismatch between the
function declaration and the call expression? It is strange that
findFunctionSpec takes both of those. Couldn't you always get FunctionDecl out
of CallExpr?
================
Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/StdLibraryFunctionsChecker.cpp:508
@@ +507,3 @@
+ FunctionSpecMap = {
+ // The isascii() family of functions.
+ { "isalnum",
----------------
you could also use /*NameOfTheField*/ convention to name the arguments if that
would make this map more readable.
================
Comment at: test/Analysis/std-library-functions.c:3
@@ +2,3 @@
+
+void clang_analyzer_eval(int);
+int glob;
----------------
Why are you not testing all of the functions?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D20811
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
