[PATCH] D52423: [analyzer] Make ConversionChecker load StdCLibraryFunctionsChecker
donat.nagy abandoned this revision. donat.nagy added a comment. I submitted a new patch, which moves stdCLibraryFunctions to apiModeling (https://reviews.llvm.org/D52722). Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D52423 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[PATCH] D52423: [analyzer] Make ConversionChecker load StdCLibraryFunctionsChecker
NoQ added a comment. As far as i understand, these driver-controlled thingies are for platform owners to be able to say "hey we clearly don't want this checker to be turned on on our platform". As long as there's no indication of that sort of issue, we should instead keep it all in one place, which is `Checkers.td`. It's already hard enough to figure out which checkers are on by default by looking at the list of checkers. Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D52423 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[PATCH] D52423: [analyzer] Make ConversionChecker load StdCLibraryFunctionsChecker
donat.nagy added a comment. Yes, moving StdCLibraryFunctionsChecker to an always-loaded package is probably a better solution than adding this one particular dependency link. (Evaluating these functions may be useful for other checkers as well, although it does not seem to change the results of other regression tests.) As an alternative to moving this checker to either the core or the apiModeling package, we could add unix.StdCLibraryFunctions to the dozen or so loaded-by-default checkers listed in lib/Driver/ToolChains/Clang.cpp without moving it to a different package. Which of these options is the best? Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D52423 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[PATCH] D52423: [analyzer] Make ConversionChecker load StdCLibraryFunctionsChecker
NoQ added a comment. Maybe just move `StdCLibraryFunctionsChecker` to `core`? (`.apiModeling`?) We officially don't support disabling `core`, so i guess it kinda solves the issue. Also all of our languages are C-based, these functions are present on all platforms (if any of those aren't, we could split them out and keep in `unix`). Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D52423 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[PATCH] D52423: [analyzer] Make ConversionChecker load StdCLibraryFunctionsChecker
Szelethus added inline comments.
Comment at: test/Analysis/conversion.c:158
extern int dostuff (void);
int falsePositive2() {
int c, n;
And this one
Repository:
rC Clang
https://reviews.llvm.org/D52423
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[PATCH] D52423: [analyzer] Make ConversionChecker load StdCLibraryFunctionsChecker
george.karpenkov added a comment.
The concept makes sense. @NoQ any comments? I don't recall seeing that pattern
before.
Comment at: test/Analysis/conversion.c:144
int isascii(int c);
void falsePositive1() {
char kb2[5];
Also the function name should be changed as well
Repository:
rC Clang
https://reviews.llvm.org/D52423
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[PATCH] D52423: [analyzer] Make ConversionChecker load StdCLibraryFunctionsChecker
Szelethus edited reviewers, added: NoQ; removed: dergachev.a. Szelethus added a comment. Cool! Comment at: test/Analysis/conversion.c:141 -// false positives.. +// old false positives.. I think this comment is no longer relevant ^-^ Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D52423 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
