zaks.anna added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/BugReporterVisitors.cpp:651-652
+ } else if (StoreSite->getLocation().getAs<BlockEntrance>()) {
+ os << "Reach the max loop limit.";
+ os << " Assigning a conjured symbol";
+ if (R->canPrintPretty()) {
----------------
xazax.hun wrote:
> zaks.anna wrote:
> > MTC wrote:
> > > NoQ wrote:
> > > > This is user-facing text, and users shouldn't know about conjured
> > > > symbols, and "max" shouldn't be shortened, and i'm not sure what else.
> > > > I'd probably suggest something along the lines of "Contents of <...>
> > > > are wiped", but this is still not good enough.
> > > >
> > > > Also could you add a test that displays this note? I.e. with
> > > > `-analyzer-output=text`.
> > > Thanks for your review.
> > >
> > > You are right, whether this information should be displayed to the user
> > > is a question worth discussing.
> > I am not convinced that we need to print this information to the user. The
> > problem here is that it leaks internal implementation details about the
> > analyzer. The users should not know about "loop limits" and "invalidation"
> > and most of the users would not even know what this means. I can see how
> > this is useful to the analyzer developers for debugging the analyzer, but
> > not to the end user.
> >
> While we might not want to expose this to the user this can be really useful
> to understand what the analyzer is doing when we debugging a false positive
> finding. Maybe it would be worth to introduce a developer mode or verbose
> mode for those purposes. What do you think?
I'd be fine with that in theory, though the downside is that it would pollute
the code a bit. One trick that's often used to better understand a report when
debugging is to remove the path note pruning (by passing a flag). I am not sure
if that approach can be extended for this case. Ex: maybe we could have special
markers on the notes saying that they are for debug purposes only and have the
pruning remove them.
By the way, is this change related to the other change from this patch?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D37187
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
