NoQ added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/DynamicTypePropagation.cpp:198
+ // 'self' variable of the current class method.
+ if (ReceiverSVal == Message.getSelfSVal()) {
+ // In this case, we should return the type of the enclosing class
----------------
vsavchenko wrote:
> NoQ wrote:
> > vsavchenko wrote:
> > > NoQ wrote:
> > > > I believe this is pretty much always the case. At least whenever
> > > > `getInstanceReceiver()` is available. Another exception seem to be when
> > > > `ReceiverSVal` is an `UnknownVal` (in this case `self` is going to be
> > > > `SymbolRegionValue` because it's never set in the Store), but that's
> > > > it. I inferred this by looking at
> > > > `ObjCMethodCall::getInitialStackFrameContents()`.
> > > >
> > > > I think we should have used `getSelfSVal()` to begin with.
> > > > I believe this is pretty much always the case.
> > >
> > > I didn't quite get what you mean by that
> > >
> > >
> > What i'm trying to say is that `C.getSVal(RecE)` and
> > `Message.getSelfSVal()` and `Message.getReceiverSVal()` are basically the
> > same `SVal`. It shouldn't be necessary to check both or check whether
> > they're the same; you must have meant to check for something else, probably
> > something purely syntactic.
> >
> > ----
> >
> > > I inferred this by looking at
> > > ObjCMethodCall::getInitialStackFrameContents().
> >
> > Wait, so it's only true for inlined methods. For non-inlined methods
> > `getSelfSVal()` will be unknown :/
> Yeah, that might be a bit extraneous to do it with `SVal`s, but this code for
> sure does its job (it is definitely not a redundant check). `getSelfSVal()`
> returns receiver of the function //containing// the call and not the call
> itself. So, it does check if we the receiver of the message is `self`.
>
> I changed it to this way of doing things because it is consistent with how
> the same thing is done in `getRuntimeDefinition`.
> `getSelfSVal()` returns receiver of the function containing the call and not
> the call itself
😱 looks broken to me.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D78286/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D78286
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
