On Feb 8, 2012, at 3:25 PM, Ted Kremenek wrote: > On Feb 8, 2012, at 3:16 PM, Anna Zaks <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Author: zaks >> Date: Wed Feb 8 17:16:56 2012 >> New Revision: 150112 >> >> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=150112&view=rev >> Log: >> [analyzer] MallocChecker: implement pessimistic version of the checker, >> which allows values to escape through unknown calls. >> >> Assumes all calls but the malloc family are unknown. > > One nit: we should only do this if the call was not inlined. Otherwise we're > being overly pessimistic.
Shouldn't inlining be transparent to the checkers? Ex: Should the checkers receive the post/pre visit callbacks on a CallExpr if it's being inlined? Another concern I wanted to raise is that I've renamed the optimistic(old) checker to MallocWithAnnotationsd and named the new checker Malloc. I think the naming makes sense, but not sure if we are going to effect existing users of the old Malloc checker.
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
