balazske added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/Analysis/errno-stdlibraryfunctions-notes.c:17
access("path", 0);
- // expected-note@-1{{Assuming that function 'access' is successful, in this
case the value 'errno' may be undefined after the call and should not be used}}
+ // expected-note@-1{{Assuming that the call fails}}
+ access("path", 0);
----------------
This is the type of note that looks not necessary and even confusing. It could
be any case of failure or success, the failure is chosen. This does not matter
for the end result but can be confusing for users (one may think that there is
a connection to the found bug).
================
Comment at: clang/test/Analysis/std-c-library-functions-path-notes.c:72
+ return 0;
+ int l = islower(c);
+ f = fileno(f1); // \
----------------
Here no note is shown. Probably because the summary of `islower` has cases
without note, these notes should be added.
================
Comment at: clang/test/Analysis/stream-errno-note.c:24
void check_tmpfile(void) {
FILE *F = tmpfile();
+ // expected-note@-1{{'errno' may be undefined after successful call to
'tmpfile'}}
----------------
At this place a note 'Assuming that the call is successful' should be
displayed. But this is not working because `StreamChecker` is enabled.
`StreamChecker` makes a state split before `StdCLibraryFunctionsChecker` for
`tmpfile` failure and success, then in `StdCLibraryFunctionsChecker` the
successor count is 1 and the note is not added. Probably the logic can be
improved by finding the first node that belongs to the `CallEvent`. Or count
how many cases are applied before adding the note tags.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D153612/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D153612
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
