xazax.hun requested changes to this revision.
xazax.hun added a comment.
This revision now requires changes to proceed.
I am not an expert when it comes to VLAs but I do see some problems here.
First of all, we do not want to include typedef statements in the CFG as they
are noops in terms of the execution. We definitely want to include the
evaluation of array size expressions for VLAs. In case the evaluation of that
expression is not included in the CFG that is definitely a bug but the name of
the revision should reflect this.
My questions so far:
- Where is the size expression actually evaluated? Is it evaluated at the point
of the typedef or at the point of the variable definition? It is possible to
construct code that behaves differently in those cases. In case the behavior is
the latter the currently produced CFG is wrong.
- You mentioned that type aliases are not handled. Why? Is there any technical
reason for that? Is it a language restriction? Does it behave differently? I
think, unless it is really hard to support it well, I would prefer to introduce
full support in one patch. Otherwise rewriting a code to use type aliases
instead of typedefs would change the behavior of the analyzer on that code
which is quite surprising for the users.
I think this needs more testing, i.e. what about more complex size expressions
and multiple typedefs/type aliases? Can we have multidimensional VLAs?
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Analysis/CFG.cpp:2843
+
+ if (const auto *TDD = dyn_cast<TypedefDecl>(DS->getSingleDecl())) {
+ // If we encounter a VLA in typedef, then process its size expressions.
----------------
Can't we have the same situation with type aliases? In that case, maybe we
should check for `TypedefNameDecl` instead.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D77809/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D77809
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
