vrnithinkumar added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/ExprEngineCXX.cpp:619
getCheckerManager().runCheckersForEvalCall(DstEvaluated, *I, *Call,
*this,
- CallOpts);
+ CallOpts, Bldr);
}
----------------
NoQ wrote:
> We should probably delete the copy-constructor for node builders. I've no
> idea what it's supposed to do anyway and the whole problem that we're having
> here is due to there being //too many// of them already.
So we should disable the copying of `NodeBuilder` and create a heap allocated
`NodeBuilder` and use pointer to pass around functions?
================
Comment at: clang/test/Analysis/smart-ptr-text-output.cpp:39
void derefAfterRelease() {
- std::unique_ptr<A> P(new A());
+ std::unique_ptr<A> P(new A()); // expected-note {{Smart pointer 'P' is
constructed}}
P.release(); // expected-note {{Smart pointer 'P' is released and set to
null}}
----------------
NoQ wrote:
> Ok, these notes shouldn't be there; a note on `.release()` is sufficient to
> understand the warning and it looks like that's one more place where we
> should mark the region as uninteresting.
>
> Can you try to debug why did they suddenly show up?
I checked the exploded graph for this test case.
Before the bug fix, there exists a path where the no Note Tag is added to the
corresponding `CXXConstructExpr`. After the fix removed this branching theres
always a Note Tag on Ctr. {F12591752}
Since the note on .release() is sufficient to understand the warning and I
agree we should mark this region as uninteresting.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D85796/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D85796
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
