xazax.hun added a comment. Are smart pointers special? I would expect to see similar problems with containers (or even a nested optional). I wonder whether an allowlist instead of a denylist approach is better here. E.g., instead of disabling the modeling for smart pointers, we could enable it for cases that we actually support (or alternatively, we could add a confidence value to the unsafe access). Usually, these checks are pretty robust when we deal with objects on the stack of the analyzed function (locals, parameters), but it is really hard to reason about objects from the outside (e.g., when a reference to an object is acquired from a container or smart pointer) unless we have explicit modeling for the APIs. The confidence approach might be useful as we are unlikely to cover all the custom smart pointers the users have.
Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D122143/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D122143 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
