Szelethus added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/IteratorModeling.cpp:541-542
+ BR.markInteresting(It1);
+ if (const auto &LCV1 = It1.getAs<nonloc::LazyCompoundVal>()) {
+ BR.markInteresting(LCV1->getRegion());
+ }
----------------
NoQ wrote:
> baloghadamsoftware wrote:
> > NoQ wrote:
> > > I'm opposed to this code for the same reason that i'm opposed to it in
> > > the debug checker. Parent region is an undocumented implementation detail
> > > of `RegionStore`. It is supposed to be immaterial to the user. You should
> > > not rely on its exact value.
> > >
> > > @baloghadamsoftware Can we eliminate all such code from iterator checkers
> > > and instead identify all iterators by regions in which they're stored?
> > > Does my improved C++ support help with this anyhow whenever it kicks in?
> > How to find the region where it is stored? I am open to find better
> > solutions, but it was the only one I could find so far. If we ignore
> > `LazyCompoundVal` then everything falls apart, we can remove all the
> > iterator-related checkers.
> It's the region from which you loaded it. If you obtained it as
> `Call.getArgSVal()` then it's the parameter region for the call. If you
> obtained it as `Call.getReturnValue()` then it's the target region can be
> obtained by looking at the //construction context// for the call.
`LazyCompoundVal` and friends seem to be a constantly emerging headache for
almost everyone. For how long I've spent in the analyzer, and have religiously
studied conversations and your workbook about it, I still feel anxious whenever
it comes up.
It would be great to have this documented in the code sometime.
================
Comment at: clang/test/Analysis/iterator-modelling.cpp:169
clang_analyzer_eval(clang_analyzer_iterator_container(i2) == &v); //
expected-warning{{TRUE}}
//
expected-note@-1{{TRUE}}
----------------
baloghadamsoftware wrote:
> Szelethus wrote:
> > Interestingness won't be propagated here because
> > `clang_analyzer_iterator_container(i2) == &v` is interesting, not
> > `clang_analyzer_iterator_container(i2)`, correct?
> Currently only `clang_analyzer_express()` marks its argument as interesting.
> This could be extended in the future, however the argument of
> `clang_analyzer_eval()` is usually the result of the comparison, not the
> symbolic comparison itself so the sides of the comparison are not reachable
> at that point.
Fair enough.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D75677/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D75677
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
