[PATCH] D48436: [analyzer][UninitializedObjectChecker] Fixed a false negative by no longer filtering out certain constructor calls

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rC339237: [analyzer][UninitializedObjectChecker] Fixed a false negative by no longer… (authored by Szelethus, committed by ). Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D48436 Files:

[PATCH] D48436: [analyzer][UninitializedObjectChecker] Fixed a false negative by no longer filtering out certain constructor calls

Szelethus updated this revision to Diff 159687. Szelethus added a comment. Added a TODO. https://reviews.llvm.org/D48436 Files: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/UninitializedObjectChecker.cpp test/Analysis/cxx-uninitialized-object.cpp Index: test/Analysis/cxx-uninitialized-object.cpp

[PATCH] D48436: [analyzer][UninitializedObjectChecker] Fixed a false negative by no longer filtering out certain constructor calls

Szelethus added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D48436#1191458, @NoQ wrote: > Ok, let's commit this and see how to fix it later. Thanks! ^-^ > I still think it's more important to come up with clear rules of who is > responsible for initializing fields than making sure our warnings

[PATCH] D48436: [analyzer][UninitializedObjectChecker] Fixed a false negative by no longer filtering out certain constructor calls

NoQ accepted this revision. NoQ added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. Ok, let's commit this and see how to fix it later. I still think it's more important to come up with clear rules of who is responsible for initializing fields than making sure our warnings are

[PATCH] D48436: [analyzer][UninitializedObjectChecker] Fixed a false negative by no longer filtering out certain constructor calls

Szelethus added a comment. Polite ping :) https://reviews.llvm.org/D48436 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[PATCH] D48436: [analyzer][UninitializedObjectChecker] Fixed a false negative by no longer filtering out certain constructor calls

Szelethus added inline comments. Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/UninitializedObjectChecker.cpp:681-689 +Optional OtherObject = +getObjectVal(OtherCtor, Context); +if (!OtherObject) + continue; + +// If the CurrentObject is a field of

[PATCH] D48436: [analyzer][UninitializedObjectChecker] Fixed a false negative by no longer filtering out certain constructor calls

NoQ added inline comments. Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/UninitializedObjectChecker.cpp:681-689 +Optional OtherObject = +getObjectVal(OtherCtor, Context); +if (!OtherObject) + continue; + +// If the CurrentObject is a field of OtherObject, it

[PATCH] D48436: [analyzer][UninitializedObjectChecker] Fixed a false negative by no longer filtering out certain constructor calls

Szelethus added inline comments. Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/UninitializedObjectChecker.cpp:681-689 +Optional OtherObject = +getObjectVal(OtherCtor, Context); +if (!OtherObject) + continue; + +// If the CurrentObject is a field of

[PATCH] D48436: [analyzer][UninitializedObjectChecker] Fixed a false negative by no longer filtering out certain constructor calls

NoQ added a comment. Sorry, i'm still lagging with my reviews because there are a lot of them and i have to balance it with doing actual work. I'll hopefully get to this soon. Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/UninitializedObjectChecker.cpp:681-689 +Optional

[PATCH] D48436: [analyzer][UninitializedObjectChecker] Fixed a false negative by no longer filtering out certain constructor calls

Szelethus added a comment. Polite ping :) https://reviews.llvm.org/D48436 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[PATCH] D48436: [analyzer][UninitializedObjectChecker] Fixed a false negative by no longer filtering out certain constructor calls

Szelethus added inline comments. Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/UninitializedObjectChecker.cpp:674 + const LocationContext *LC = Context.getLocationContext(); + while ((LC = LC->getParent())) { + Szelethus wrote: > NoQ wrote: > > george.karpenkov

[PATCH] D48436: [analyzer][UninitializedObjectChecker] Fixed a false negative by no longer filtering out certain constructor calls

Szelethus added a comment. > I'll think about that a bit more; it might be worth it to track such deferred > subregions in a state trait and drain it whenever we pop back to an explicit > constructor. There are so many things to consider, like the following case: struct DynTBase {};

[PATCH] D48436: [analyzer][UninitializedObjectChecker] Fixed a false negative by no longer filtering out certain constructor calls

NoQ added inline comments. Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/UninitializedObjectChecker.cpp:674 + const LocationContext *LC = Context.getLocationContext(); + while ((LC = LC->getParent())) { + george.karpenkov wrote: > nit: could we have `while (LC)`

[PATCH] D48436: [analyzer][UninitializedObjectChecker] Fixed a false negative by no longer filtering out certain constructor calls

NoQ added a comment. > A call to `Derived::Derived()` previously emitted no warnings. However, with > these changes, a warning is emitted for `Base::a`. Yep, a heuristic to skip implicit constructor declarations during analysis and make the first explicit constructor responsible for

[PATCH] D48436: [analyzer][UninitializedObjectChecker] Fixed a false negative by no longer filtering out certain constructor calls

Szelethus added a comment. Polite ping ^-^ https://reviews.llvm.org/D48436 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[PATCH] D48436: [analyzer][UninitializedObjectChecker] Fixed a false negative by no longer filtering out certain constructor calls

Szelethus added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D48436#1144380, @NoQ wrote: > I think we need to finish our dialog on who's responsible for initialization > and why do we need to filter constructors at all, cause it's kinda hanging > (i.e. https://reviews.llvm.org/D45532#inline-422673).

[PATCH] D48436: [analyzer][UninitializedObjectChecker] Fixed a false negative by no longer filtering out certain constructor calls

NoQ added a comment. I think we need to finish our dialog on who's responsible for initialization and why do we need to filter constructors at all, cause it's kinda hanging (i.e. https://reviews.llvm.org/D45532#inline-422673). https://reviews.llvm.org/D48436

[PATCH] D48436: [analyzer][UninitializedObjectChecker] Fixed a false negative by no longer filtering out certain constructor calls

george.karpenkov accepted this revision. george.karpenkov added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. LGTM with a nit. Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/UninitializedObjectChecker.cpp:674 + const LocationContext *LC = Context.getLocationContext();

[PATCH] D48436: [analyzer][UninitializedObjectChecker] Fixed a false negative by no longer filtering out certain constructor calls

Szelethus updated this revision to Diff 152343. Szelethus added a comment. Moved `LC = LC ->getParent()` to the `while` statement's argument to avoid a potential infinite loop. Whoops :) https://reviews.llvm.org/D48436 Files: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/UninitializedObjectChecker.cpp

[PATCH] D48436: [analyzer][UninitializedObjectChecker] Fixed a false negative by no longer filtering out certain constructor calls

Szelethus created this revision. Szelethus added reviewers: george.karpenkov, NoQ, xazax.hun, rnkovacs. Herald added subscribers: cfe-commits, mikhail.ramalho, a.sidorin, szepet, whisperity. As of now, all constructor calls are ignored that are being called by a constructor. The point of this