martong marked 4 inline comments as done.
martong added inline comments.
================
Comment at:
clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/StdLibraryFunctionsChecker.cpp:836-837
+ NewState, NewNode,
+ C.getNoteTag([Msg](PathSensitiveBugReport &BR,
+ llvm::raw_ostream &OS) { OS << Msg; }));
}
----------------
NoQ wrote:
> martong wrote:
> > steakhal wrote:
> > > This way each and every applied constraint will be displayed even if the
> > > given argument does not constitute to the bug condition.
> > > I recommend you branching within the lambda, on the interestingness of
> > > the given argument constraint.
> > Okay, good point, thanks for the feedback! I am planning to change to this
> > direction.
> Excellent catch @steakhal!
>
> I think you can always emit the note but only mark it as //unprunable// when
> the argument is interesting. This way it'd work identically to our normal
> "Assuming..." notes.
> I think you can always emit the note but only mark it as unprunable when the
> argument is interesting. This way it'd work identically to our normal
> "Assuming..." notes.
`IsPrunable` is a `const` member in `NoteTag`. So, we have to decide about
prunability when we call `getNoteTag`. To follow your suggestion, we should
decide the prunability dynamically in `TagVisitor::VisitNode`. This would
require some infrastructural changes in `NoteTag`. We could add e.g. another
Callback member that would be able to decide the prunability with the help of a
`BugReport&`. I am okay to go into that direction, but it should definitely be
separated from this patch (follow-up). I am not sure if it is an absolutely
needed dependency for this change, is it? (If yes then I am going to create the
dependent patch first).
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D101526/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D101526
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
