================
@@ -51,10 +101,68 @@ void UseAfterLifetimeEnd::reportDanglingSource(const
MemRegion *Source,
(llvm::Twine("Returning value bound to ") +
lifetime_modeling::getRegionName(Source) + " that will go out of
scope"),
N);
+
+ if (SourceRange Range = getRegionDeclRange(Source); Range.isValid())
+ BR->addRange(Range);
+
+ BR->addVisitor<UseAfterLifetimeEndBRVisitor>(RetVal, Source);
bugreporter::trackStoredValue(RetVal, Source, *BR);
C.emitReport(std::move(BR));
}
+PathDiagnosticPieceRef UseAfterLifetimeEndBRVisitor::createSourcePiece(
+ const ExplodedNode *N, BugReporterContext &BRC, StringRef Message) const {
+ const Stmt *S = N->getStmtForDiagnostics();
+ if (!S)
+ return nullptr;
+
+ const Expr *RetExpr = dyn_cast_or_null<Expr>(S);
+ const Expr *Arg = getLifetimeBoundArg(RetExpr);
----------------
Xazax-hun wrote:
This only returns the first lifetimebound arg. I wonder if we need to
generalise this since the first might not be the one that is problematic. Maybe
the second one was the one that is out of scope and the first is fine. Do you
have a test for that case? Could potentially be a follow up.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/207052
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
