On Feb 8, 2012, at 3:37 PM, Anna Zaks <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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?
It should be transparent, but checkers should not be ignorant of its implications. > Ex: Should the checkers receive the post/pre visit callbacks on a CallExpr if > it's being inlined? Absolutely. The pre- and post- visit checks are for checking preconditions and postconditions, which is orthogonal to how the actual function call gets evaluated. This is probably worth some design discussion. > 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. Since the old checker behavior wasn't widely published (and the checker was "experimental" on top of that) I think this is fine. Existing users can migrate with little difficulty.
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
