vsk added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D34299#788908, @arphaman wrote:
> Ok, so now the null check `return.sloc.load` won't call the checker in > compiler-rt and so the program won't `abort` and won't hit the `unreachable`. > I have one question tough: > > This patch changes the behavior of this sanitizer for the example that I gave > above. Yes, in the case where there is no explicit return, and the return value happens to be null. > Previously a runtime diagnostic was emitted, but now there is none. While I'm > not saying that the previous behaviour was correct, I'm wondering if the new > behaviour is right. I think that for C++ it makes sense, but I don't know > the right answer for C. I'm leaning more towards the new behaviour, since > technically in C falling off without returning a value is not UB unless that > return value is used by the caller. But at the same time, since we don't > diagnose `return` UB for C, maybe it's still worth diagnosing this particular > issue? The user might not catch it otherwise at all (or they might catch it > later when they try to access it, but by that point they might not know where > the pointer came from). WDYT? Without seeing what the caller does with the result, the return value check can't do a good job of diagnosing missing returns. I think clang should emit a diagnostic in the example above, and -Wreturn-type does. So I think the new behavior is appropriate. https://reviews.llvm.org/D34299 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
