RedDocMD marked an inline comment as done. RedDocMD added a comment. In D97183#2589445 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D97183#2589445>, @NoQ wrote:
> Nice! > > I suspect you're adding too many notes. The note needs to not be there if the > *raw* pointer is not tracked. Eg., I suspect that your patch would add a note > in the following case in which it shouldn't be there because the raw pointer > value doesn't participate in the report despite smart pointer region being > interesting: > > std::unique_ptr<A> P; > A *a = P.get(); // shound't emit a note here > P->foo(); > > It's important to not emit redundant notes because users typically take these > checker-specific notes as an indication that this information is an essential > piece of evidence of the bug in their program. In this example they'd believe > that the analyzer has figured out that the smart pointer is null by looking > at what happens to the raw pointer value. So they may become very confused if > this isn't the case. @NoQ, in the example you have given, isn't the smart-pointer `P` null? So shouldn't a warning be emitted for de-referencing it? Or is it that since `a` is not being used, a warning shouldn't be emitted? Sorry, I could not quite understand that point ... Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D97183/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D97183 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
