On Feb 22, 2011, at 8:53 AM, Lenny Maiorani wrote:
> On 02/21/2011 09:22 PM, Ted Kremenek wrote:
>> I was looking at the test cases, and noticed the following diagnostics:
>>
>> + return strnlen(0, 3); // expected-warning{{Null pointer argument in
>> call to byte string function}}
>>
>> and
>>
>> + return strnlen((char*)&&label, 3); // expected-warning{{Argument to
>> byte string function is the address of the label 'label', which is not a
>> null-terminated string}}
>>
>> I know you didn't write these diagnostics, but the term "byte string
>> function" sounds very clinical, and not all that helpful. It's certainly
>> not a term I'm familiar with (even though I can decipher its meaning). Do
>> you think we should just say the name of the function instead of an opaque
>> term like "byte string function"?
>>
> Ted,
>
> Thanks for committing my patches.
>
> I definitely agree that the term "byte string function" is a little ambiguous
> and possibly too proper. Changing that should be straight forward provided
> the CheckerContext knows the function in question. I assume it does and I
> just need to look into it.
CStringChecker clearly knows the name of the function, since it dispatches off
the function name in 'evalCall()'.
>
> Expect a patch sometime soon.
Sounds great!
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
