================
@@ -1404,6 +1486,47 @@ void StreamChecker::evalFeofFerror(const FnDescription
*Desc,
}
}
+void StreamChecker::evalFileno(const FnDescription *Desc, const CallEvent
&Call,
+ CheckerContext &C) const {
+ // Fileno should fail only if the passed pointer is invalid.
+ // Some of the preconditions are checked already in preDefault.
+ // Here we can assume that the operation does not fail.
+ // An added failure case causes many unexpected warnings because a file
number
+ // becomes -1 that is not expected by the program.
+ // The stream error states are not modified by 'fileno', and not the 'errno'.
+ // (To ensure that errno is not changed, this evalCall is needed to not
+ // invalidate 'errno' like in a default case.)
----------------
NagyDonat wrote:
```suggestion
// Here we assume that the operation does not fail, because we introduced a
// separate branch where fileno() returns -1, then it would cause many
// unexpected and unwanted warnings in situations where fileno() is called
// on vaild streams.
// The stream error states are not modified by 'fileno', and 'errno' is also
// left unchanged (so this evalCall does not invalidate it).
```
I felt that this comment is a bit difficult to understand and composed a
reworded alternative. Of course, this is a very subjective matter and English
isn't my first language, so feel free to bikeshed this and/or override my
suggestions.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/81842
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
