================
Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/CallAndMessageChecker.cpp:285
@@ +284,3 @@
+ const Decl *D = Call.getDecl();
+ if (D && isa<FunctionDecl>(D)) {
+ // If we have a declaration, we can make sure we pass enough parameters to
----------------
Since you cast D again below, the best way to write this is probably as follows:
```if (const FunctionDecl *FD = dyn_cast_or_null<FunctionDecl>(D))```
This doesn't check blocks, which could easily have the same problem, but I
guess that's okay for now. Your check in CallEvent will at least ensure they
aren't called with the wrong values.
================
Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/CallEvent.cpp:275-277
@@ -274,4 +274,5 @@
+ unsigned NumArgs = Call.getNumArgs();
unsigned Idx = 0;
- for (; I != E; ++I, ++Idx) {
+ for (; I != E && Idx < NumArgs; ++I, ++Idx) {
const ParmVarDecl *ParamDecl = *I;
----------------
This implies we won't bind any parameter values when calling a K&R C function.
I guess that's correct behavior...we can't just not inline such a function
because people declare C functions as `void foo()`.
================
Comment at: test/Analysis/fewer-args.cpp:1-7
@@ +1,7 @@
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -analyze -analyzer-checker=core %s -verify
+
+void f(int a) { }
+
+void g() {
+ reinterpret_cast<void (*)()>(f)(); // expected-warning{{Function taking 1
argument(s) called with less (0)}}
+}
----------------
I'm not sure this deserves a whole file of its own...the cost of a separate
test invocation is non-zero. Please add this to, say, inline.cpp, even though
it's not just about inline functions, and please add the K&R test to inline.c.
http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D994
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
