NoQ added a comment.
Sooooo... note tags <https://reviews.llvm.org/D58367>?
================
Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/FuchsiaHandleChecker.cpp:261
+
+ // TODO: do we want to emit notes for escapes?
+ // do we want to emit notes for for error checks? I.e. on which branch
----------------
Will we ever emit a report against an escaped symbol? If not, there will never
be a report to attach the note to.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/FuchsiaHandleChecker.cpp:262-263
+ // TODO: do we want to emit notes for escapes?
+ // do we want to emit notes for for error checks? I.e. on which branch
+ // do we consider the acquire/release success or fail.
+
----------------
If the function is implemented as an eager state split, having a note is great
and easy to implement.
If it's implemented as a Schrödinger state split, then i think we should still
emit a note at the collapse point (especially given that it may happen in a
deeper stack frame than the call that produced the symbol). But this makes me
recognize the need for note tags in `evalAssume`.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/FuchsiaHandleChecker.cpp:521
+ if (Type.isSuppressOnSink()) {
+ const ExplodedNode *AcquireNode = getAcquireSite(ErrorNode, Sym, C);
+ if (AcquireNode) {
----------------
I wonder how terrible would it be to allow bug visitors (or note tags, which
are just an "API sugar" for bug visitors) to mutate the uniqueing location.
Because such information is naturally available in the visitor.
It most likely won't work because the information is necessary before the
visitors are run. But it would have been nice though, so i feel as if we're
missing an opportunity here.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D70725/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D70725
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
