NoQ added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/StdLibraryFunctionsChecker.cpp:409
- Optional<Summary> FoundSummary = findFunctionSummary(FD, CE, C);
+ for (const ValueConstraintPtr& VC : Summary.ArgConstraints) {
+ ProgramStateRef SuccessSt = VC->apply(State, Call, Summary);
----------------
NoQ wrote:
> martong wrote:
> > NoQ wrote:
> > > martong wrote:
> > > > NoQ wrote:
> > > > > Maybe we should add an assertion that the same argument isn't
> > > > > specified multiple times.
> > > > I think there could be cases when we want to have e.g. a not-null
> > > > constraint on the 1st argument, but also we want to express that the
> > > > 1st argument's size is described by the 2nd argument. I am planning to
> > > > implement such a constraints in the future. In that case we would have
> > > > two constraints on the 1st argument and the assert would fire.
> > > Wait, i misunderstood the code. It's even worse than that: you're adding
> > > transitions in a loop, so it'll cause state splits for every constraint.
> > > Because you do not intend to create multiple branches here, there needs
> > > to be exactly one `addTransition` performed every time `checkPreCall` is
> > > called. I.e., for now this code is breaking everything whenever there's
> > > more than one constraint, regardless of whether it's on the same argument.
> > Yeah, that's a very good catch, thanks! I am going to prepare a patch to
> > fix this soon. My idea is to store the `SuccessSt` and apply the next
> > argument constraint on that. And once the loop is finished I'll have call
> > the `addTransition()`.
> Yup, that's the common thing to do in such cases.
While we're at it, could you try to come up with a runtime assertion that'll
help us prevent these mistakes?
Like, dunno, make `CheckerContext` crash whenever there's more than one branch
being added, and then add a method to opt out when it's actually necessary to
add more transitions (i.e., the user would say `C.setMaxTransitions(2)` at the
beginning of their checker callback whenever they need to make a state split,
defaulting to 1). It's a bit tricky because i still want to allow multiple
transitions when they allow one branch (i.e., transitions chained together) but
i think it'll take a lot of review anxiety from me because it's a very
dangerous mistake to make and for now code review is the only way to catch it.
So, yay, faster code reviews.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D73898/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D73898
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
