martong marked an inline comment as done.
martong added inline comments.
================
Comment at:
clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/StdLibraryFunctionsChecker.cpp:1735-1747
+ if (!addToFunctionSummaryMap(
+ "accept", Summary(ArgTypes{IntTy, *StructSockaddrPtrRestrictTy,
+ *Socklen_tPtrRestrictTy},
+ RetType{IntTy}, NoEvalCall)
+ .ArgConstraint(ArgumentCondition(
+ 0, WithinRange, Range(0, IntMax)))))
+ // Do not add constraints on sockaddr.
----------------
Szelethus wrote:
> This is quite a bit of code duplication -- if we failed to match the precise
> `accept`, we just try again with the middle argument type being unspecified?
> Whats the difference between this and trying to match with `Irrelevant`
> straight away?
> if we failed to match the precise accept, we just try again with the middle
> argument type being unspecified?
Yes. And that will be a successful match in the case where `sockaddr` is a
transparent union.
> Whats the difference between this and trying to match with Irrelevant
> straight away?
Yeah, it's a good catch. There is no difference with `accept` because we don't
have any constraints on `sockaddr` anyway. But, the other functions have fewer
constraints with the transparent union.
Perhaps we should separate the body of the `Summary` from the `Signature` and
in this case we could reuse that for both signatures. Or as you suggested we
could just match by default with the `Irrelevant`. What do you think?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D83407/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D83407
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
