steakhal added a comment.
In D154603#4609872 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D154603#4609872>, @gamesh411 wrote:
> - try to consolidate the multiple warnings coming from this checker's
> `checkLocation` callback
>
> category based filtering ( example from
> lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/GenericTaintChecker.cpp:167 ):
>
> If (!BR.isInteresting(CallLocation) ||
> BR.getBugType().getCategory() != categories::TaintedData) { //but this
> would be InvalidPtr BugType's category, namely memory_error
> return "";
> }
>
> or checker based filtering ( example from
> lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/SmartPtrModeling.cpp:397 )
>
> if (&BR.getBugType() != smartptr::getNullDereferenceBugType() || // this is
> a comparison of the address of a static bugtype
> !BR.isInteresting(ThisRegion))
>
> This second one gives a more precise filtering, but the
> implementation-specific detail of storing the bugtype by reference is what
> seems to make this work, which I find hacky.
If the checker issues a NoteTag, it makes sense in certain situations to make
sure that it acts on only reports issued by that checker. The standard way of
achieving that is by comparing the tags, as you do in the second example.
There is nothing wrong with this, if that particular checker issued that
NoteTag in the first place. It's marginally debatable, if it was not issued by
the given checker but rather something else. That would suggest to me some
logic flaw, or coupling issue. For cross-checker cases, I think the bug
category would be the better option, but I would still need to think about
that, so not set in stone :D
FYI I haven't looked at the patch yet, but I wanted to answer your question.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D154603/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D154603
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
