NoQ added a comment.
In D54438#1315953 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D54438#1315953>, @Szelethus wrote:
> - ✔️ There are in fact a variety of checkers that contain subcheckers like
> `MallocChecker`, which I think is all good, but the concept that if a
> subchecker is enabled it only sort of registeres the main checker (in
> `MallocChecker`'s case it enables modeling, but not reporting) is very hard
> to follow. I propose that all such checkers should clearly have a base,
> called something `DynamicMemoryModeling`, or `IteratorModeling` etc.
This will be the most time-consuming part, as i imagine. You'll have to split
each callback into two callbacks in two different checkers (`PostCall` vs.
`PostStmt<CallExpr>` doesn't work!) and make sure that they are called in the
correct order. I expect most modeling to go into `PostStmt` ("post-conditions")
and most checking go to `PreStmt` ("pre-conditions"). I.e., "if the
pre-condition of the statement is not fulfilled, the checker reports a bug.
Otherwise, the model enforces the post-condition after the statement"). Some
code (eg., on which particular statements does the checker react?) might be
annoying to de-duplicate. Not sure how callbacks that don't have pre/post
variants will behave.
Repository:
rC Clang
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D54438/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D54438
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
