NoQ marked an inline comment as done.
NoQ added a comment.
Yeah, i think we should avoid such peeking and instead try to do everything in
one pass. I.e., if we need to peek at the node above us, just make a visitor
that delays the decision until it has precisely the information it needs. I
guess i'll be slooowly moving in this direction.
Also every time i see special handling of `DeclRefExpr`s i get pretty worried.
It usually means that this code almost never works.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/BugReporterVisitors.cpp:1912-1922
/// Find the ExplodedNode where the lvalue (the value of 'Ex')
/// was computed.
static const ExplodedNode* findNodeForExpression(const ExplodedNode *N,
const Expr *Inner) {
while (N) {
if (N->getStmtForDiagnostics() == Inner)
return N;
----------------
Szelethus wrote:
> > When `bugreporter::trackExpressionValue()` is invoked on a `DeclRefExpr`,
> > it tries to do most of its computations over the node in which this
> > `DeclRefExpr` is computed, rather than on the error node (or whatever node
> > is stuffed into it). I'm quite confused about the idea behind it and i
> > highly doubt that it actually works correctly, but one reason why we can't
> > simply use the error node may be that the binding to that variable might
> > have already disappeared from the state by the time the bug is found.
>
> So, its possible that this function, and its uses in `trackExpressionValue`
> is completely unnecessary?
Of course it's necessary! Why would you ever write a system of mutually
recursive visitors and then never implement an ad-hoc visitor within one of
these visitors that allows you to quadratically visit nodes while you visit
nodes, before actually visiting them in the real visitor? (/sarcasm)
Repository:
rC Clang
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D67932/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D67932
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
