On Mar 20, 2014, at 4:49 , Meyer, Conrad <[email protected]> wrote:
>> This could be unknown if the argument value is unknown (i.e. the
>> analyzer has failed to symbolize it for some reason). In that case, we
>> should probably still treat this as a regular malloc.
>
>
> Agreed. It's probably obvious, but I'm not super familiar with Clang
> internals — should we also consider the previous case (!V.getAs<NonLoc>()) as
> regular malloc as well?
I think if we ever see a location in this position, that means malloc() isn't
declared the way we think it is. I'm not sure what the most conservative
behavior would be in that case, but not trying to track anything seems
sensible. Getting Unknown, though, is entirely possible just because of
limitations in the analyzer's reasoning power, even though it happens very
rarely these days. Leaving it the way it is seems fine.
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
