ymandel marked an inline comment as done. ymandel added a comment. In D140694#4026244 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D140694#4026244>, @xazax.hun wrote:
> This is a big improvement, I skimmed through it and looks good to me. There > might be some sneaky ways to change values of fields without mentioning them, > e.g., casting a pointer to a struct to an array of chars. But I think > reasoning about those scenarios is probably not something we want to model > anytime soon. Thanks! > Another pesky scenario when we are not doing context sensitive analysis: > > int* pointsToField = getField(myObj); > > But this can be handled correctly in a conservative way buy treating `myObj' > as escaped. Overall, I dont anticipate any blockers at the moment. Agreed. I think any other field access either falls into 1) we don't handle it soundly anyhow or 2) a conservative analysis will rule it out. ================ Comment at: clang/include/clang/Analysis/FlowSensitive/DataflowAnalysisContext.h:267 + void addFieldsReferencedInScope(llvm::DenseSet<const FieldDecl *> Fields); + ---------------- xazax.hun wrote: > Is there any scenario where check authors might invoke this function? If no, > I wonder if it would be better to make this private and make Environment a > friend of this class. Keeping the number of public methods minimal could be a > great service to future check authors. Good point. Done. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D140694/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D140694 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
