NoQ added a comment. In D66572#1640518 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D66572#1640518>, @Szelethus wrote:
> Super high level question: `CheckerManager` knows whether a checker, and I > suspect a checker callback is path sensitive or not, do you think we can > automate this decision (whether the bug report is path sensitive of > syntactic)? For the purposes of clang-tidy, can we say such a thing that if > we can't prove a bug report to be path sensitive, it will not be that? I want to reserve the ability for path-sensitive checkers to occasionally emit path-insensitive reports. This is due to my pipe dream of making a poor man's data flow engine by simply trusting ExprEngine when it says that it has explored all execution paths through a function. Cf. `UnreachableCodeChecker`, `TestAfterDivZeroChecker`. There are no other reasons because if we're not presenting a path we must admit that the problem happens on all paths, which implies some sort of must-problem, which implies no proper symbolic execution. Maybe also we can consider reporting path-insensitive reports when we are about to emit a path-sensitive report but look at the AST at the last minute and it turns out that the problem is entirely local. Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D66572/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D66572 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
