Szelethus added a comment.
Hmm, so before this patch, we just used `LVNode` everywhere and ignored
`InputNode`. It may not have made much sense, but its still not as confusing as
using both if the creation of `LVNode` is unnecessary overall. Could we just
remove it?
================
Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/BugReporterVisitors.cpp:1912-1922
/// Find the ExplodedNode where the lvalue (the value of 'Ex')
/// was computed.
static const ExplodedNode* findNodeForExpression(const ExplodedNode *N,
const Expr *Inner) {
while (N) {
if (N->getStmtForDiagnostics() == Inner)
return N;
----------------
> When `bugreporter::trackExpressionValue()` is invoked on a `DeclRefExpr`, it
> tries to do most of its computations over the node in which this
> `DeclRefExpr` is computed, rather than on the error node (or whatever node is
> stuffed into it). I'm quite confused about the idea behind it and i highly
> doubt that it actually works correctly, but one reason why we can't simply
> use the error node may be that the binding to that variable might have
> already disappeared from the state by the time the bug is found.
So, its possible that this function, and its uses in `trackExpressionValue` is
completely unnecessary?
================
Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/BugReporterVisitors.cpp:2007-2009
+ // Note that LVNode may be too late; the lvalue may have been
computed
+ // before the inlined call was evaluated. InputNode may as well be
+ // too late, because the symbol is already dead; this, however,
----------------
Too late in terms of too close to the root of the `ExplodedGraph`, or the other
way around? This is a bitconfusing since visitors are inspecting the graph in
reverse.
Repository:
rC Clang
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D67932/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D67932
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
