steakhal wrote: > ok. i'm only offering it for what it's worth - which may not be much :)
Thanks for sharing this PR. It was marginally useful. > > My argument is that in symbolic execution we should not make assumptions of > > the code without hints/indications. So we are technically not permitted to > > assume that this link list is not circular. In fact, if anything, we should > > assume the opposite because why would the code check foos.stqh_first == fi > > if it's known to be false all the time? It would make no sense. > > if you are suggesting that therefor there is no bug and the warning is WAI, i > respectfully disagree. the original code is correct and human reading of it > (before all the macro expansions) makes it quite obvious. analyzer should not > have reported a UAF here. also, STAILQ does not at all look circular, it's a > singly linked list with a head and a tail pointers, that's all. I am not convinced that there is bug, and it's too difficult to dig into this so I don't think I'll have the time. If the analyzer really has a bug, that's life. While not ideal to have FPs, sometimes we don't have the manpower to look into all of them. Nevertheless thanks for reporting it, you could have luck, and have something simpler, but well, that's it. :( https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/177449 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
