Charusso added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/MallocChecker.cpp:2549-2552
+ FunctionStr = Lexer::getSourceText(
+ CharSourceRange::getTokenRange(
+ {FD->getBeginLoc(), FD->getBody()->getBeginLoc()}),
+ C.getSourceManager(), C.getLangOpts());
----------------
NoQ wrote:
> I'm slightly worried that it'll crash when `free()` is being called from
> within a body farm.
>
> For now it probably cannot happen because none of the bodyfarmed functions
> can call `free()` directly, but i'd anyway rather add a check that the source
> locations we're taking are valid.
Oh, I missed that, thanks! I wanted to check for everything, yes.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/MallocChecker.cpp:2554-2559
+ if (FunctionStr.equals(""))
+ return false;
+
+ // We do not model the Integer Set Library's retain-count based allocation.
+ if (!FunctionStr.contains("__isl_"))
+ return false;
----------------
NoQ wrote:
> If the string is empty, it clearly cannot contain `__isl_`, so the first
> check is redundant.
The first check is: "We got a body and its decl?", the second check is: "We got
an ISL macro?". Yea, it is kind of redundant, just I like to pack one check in
one IfStmt, and now that two question merges. Also I like to make them
one-liners so they are self-explanatory.
Here is an example why I like it:
```
// Escape pointers passed into the list, unless it's an ObjC boxed
// expression which is not a boxable C structure.
if (!(isa<ObjCBoxedExpr>(Ex) &&
!cast<ObjCBoxedExpr>(Ex)->getSubExpr()
->getType()->isRecordType()))
```
- from `ExprEngine::Visit()` - `Expr::ObjCBoxedExprClass` case.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/MallocChecker.cpp:2569
+ if (const RefState *RS = State->get<RegionState>(Sym)) {
+ State = State->remove<RegionState>(Sym);
+ State = State->set<RegionState>(Sym, RefState::getEscaped(RS));
----------------
NoQ wrote:
> `remove` is unnecessary, we overwrite it anyway.
I believe in so as well, just the official code base has this semantic. I have
rewritten that, see below in `checkPointerEscapeAux()`.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D64680/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D64680
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
