Szelethus added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/NullPtrInterferenceChecker.cpp:166
+/// child is a sink node.
+static bool unconditionallyLeadsHere(const ExplodedNode *N) {
+ size_t NonSinkNodeCount = llvm::count_if(
----------------
xazax.hun wrote:
> xazax.hun wrote:
> > Consider the following code snippet:
> > ```
> > void f(int *p, bool b)
> > {
> > if (b) {
> > *p = 4;
> > }
> > if (p) {
> > ...
> > }
> > }
> > ```
> >
> > I suspect that we would get a warning for the code above. I think warning
> > on the code above might be reasonable (the values of `b` and `p` might be
> > correlated but in some cases the analyzer has no way to know this, probably
> > some assertions could make the code clearer in that case).
> >
> > My problem is with the wording of the error message.
> > The warning `Pointer is unconditionally non-null here` on the null check is
> > not true for the code above.
> Also, if the check would warn for the code snippet above, the note "suggest
> moving the condition here" would also be incorrect.
What if we demand that the the `CFGBlock` of the dereference must dominate the
`CFGBlock` of the condition point?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D120992/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D120992
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
