Szelethus added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/ContainerModeling.cpp:731
+ }
+ return C.getNoteTag([Text, Name](BugReport &BR) -> std::string {
+ SmallString<256> Msg;
----------------
baloghadamsoftware wrote:
> NoQ wrote:
> > Szelethus wrote:
> > > NoQ wrote:
> > > > baloghadamsoftware wrote:
> > > > > NoQ wrote:
> > > > > > You'll need to check whether the container is actually of interest
> > > > > > to the bug report. We don't want notes to be added about changes to
> > > > > > irrelevant containers.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You can use a combination of "Report `BR` was emitted by one of the
> > > > > > iterator checkers" and "The memory region of the container is
> > > > > > marked as interesting" (while also actually marking it as
> > > > > > interesting in the checker).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ideally we should instead make a new generic storage inside the
> > > > > > `BugReport` object, in order to pass down the interesting
> > > > > > information from the call site of `emitReport` ("Hi, i'm an
> > > > > > iterator checker who emitted this report and i'm interested in
> > > > > > changes made to the size of this container").
> > > > > Are you sure in this? I already wondered how it works so I added a
> > > > > test that checks one container and changes another one and there were
> > > > > no note tags displayed for the one we did not check but change. See
> > > > > the last test.
> > > > That's because you didn't do
> > > > ```lang=c++
> > > > V2.cbegin();
> > > > V2.cend();
> > > > ```
> > > > in the beginning.
> > > A similar conversation sparked up recently in between @boga95, @steakhal
> > > and me regarding reporting taintedness. Bug reports are fine up to the
> > > point where (in reverse) the first propagation happens, but finding out
> > > which value tainted the one that caused the report isn't handled at the
> > > moment. One idea was to mark the initial (again, in reverse) value as
> > > interesting, create a `NoteTag` at the point of propagation, where we
> > > should know which value was the cause of the spread, mark that
> > > interesting as well, etc.
> > >
> > > If `NoteTag`s only emit a message when the concerning value is
> > > interesting, this should theoretically solve that problem. I guess you
> > > could say that we're propagating interestingness in reverse.
> > >
> > > I'm not immediately sure if this idea was ever mentioned or implemented
> > > here.
> > Yes, that's the intended solution to such problems. `trackExpressionValue`
> > works similarly, just with assignments instead of taint propagations. And
> > in both cases note tags are a much more straightforward solution to the
> > problem.
> Yes, you are right. My problem now is that how to mark interesting when
> debugging? I I filter for interesting containers only, I lose my ability to
> debug. Should I create a debug function just for marking a container as
> interesting. Or is there such function already?
I'm not immediately sure how interetingness ties into debugging, what specific
scenario are you thinking about?
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D73720/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D73720
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
