kromanenkov added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/ExprEngine.cpp:2314
{
+ // Return to fulfil assert condition
+ if (location.getAs<nonloc::PointerToMember>())
----------------
NoQ wrote:
> Hmm. Why would anybody try to load anything from a plain pointer-to-member,
> rather than from a pointer-to-member-applied-to-an-object (which would no
> longer be represented by a `PointerToMember` value)? I suspect there's
> something wrong above the stack (or one of the sub-expression `SVal`s is
> incorrect), because otherwise i think that making `PointerToMember` a NonLoc
> is correct - we cannot store things in it or load things from it.
Brief analysis shows that we call evalLoad of pointer-to-member SVal after
ExprEngine::VisitCast call when cast kind is CK_LValueToRValue. Skipping this
check leads to assertion fail in pointer-to-member.cpp test. I will investigate
the other ways to supress this assertion.
================
Comment at: test/Analysis/pointer-to-member.cpp:79
// FIXME: Should emit a null dereference.
return obj.*member; // no-warning
}
----------------
NoQ wrote:
> In fact, maybe dereferencing a null pointer-to-member should produce an
> `UndefinedVal`, which could be later caught by
> `core.uninitialized.UndefReturn`. I wonder why doesn't this happen.
In fact, I plan to caught dereferencing of null pointer-to-members by the
checker which I intend to commit after this patch :) So, do you think that the
check for dereferencing a null pointer-to-member should be a part of an
analyzer core?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D25475
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
