necto wrote: > Please mark the line in the test with `no-crash` where previously crashed.
Done in b2ed9f9 > Speaking of the fix, I think anything is better than a crash, but I wonder if > we could do more. To me, once an alloca region goes out of scope, that should > behave just as if a regular stack variable, and raise an issue. What is it > not the case here? In this case, it is not an `alloca` region that went out of scope but a regular stack variable. However, unlike other test cases, it is an `alloca` region that kept the pointer to the expired stack variable. Just like with regions from `malloc`, `alloca` regions are harder to name. I could imagine naming them after the source location, which works for both `malloc` and `alloca`, but that requires substantially more engineering and quality control than this fix. Moreover, the use of explicit memory management primitives such as `malloc` and, even more so, `alloca` signals to me that the code likely does something non-trivial with memory, so CSA is prone to false positives because it is not tuned to this case. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/109655 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
