tripleCC added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/NullabilityChecker.cpp:569-594
+void NullabilityChecker::checkBeginFunction(CheckerContext &C) const {
+ const LocationContext *LCtx = C.getLocationContext();
+ auto AbstractCall = AnyCall::forDecl(LCtx->getDecl());
+ if (!AbstractCall)
+ return;
+
+ ProgramStateRef State = C.getState();
----------------
steakhal wrote:
> tripleCC wrote:
> > tripleCC wrote:
> > > steakhal wrote:
> > > > steakhal wrote:
> > > > > Uh, the diffing here looks terrible.
> > > > > What you probably want: Fold the `State`s, and if you are done,
> > > > > transition - but only if we have any parameters.
> > > > > We need to have a single `addTransition()` call if we want a single
> > > > > execution path modeled in the graph. We probably don't want one path
> > > > > on which the first parameter's annotation is known; and a separate
> > > > > one where only the second, etc.
> > > > Shouldn't we only do this for the analysis entrypoints only? (aka.
> > > > top-level functions)
> > > > I assume this checker already did some modeling of the attributes,
> > > > hence we have the warnings in the tests.
> > > Thanking for your reviewing. You are correct, I added an `inTopFrame()`
> > > condition here. It only makes sense for top-level functions.
> > I made a rookie mistake here. I should call the `addTransition` function
> > outside the for loop.
> >
> Please note that each iteration of the loop will overwrite the state you made
> in the previous iteration this way.
> Its most likely not what you want.
> Because C.getState() will always return the same state no matter the context
> here.
Updated
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D153017/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D153017
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
