steakhal added a comment. In D152436#4405558 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D152436#4405558>, @balazske wrote:
> These are reports that could be improved: > link > <https://codechecker-demo.eastus.cloudapp.azure.com/Default/report-detail?run=memcached_1.6.8_stdclibraryfunctions_test&is-unique=on&diff-type=New&checker-name=unix.StdCLibraryFunctions&report-hash=2bf08110160cdf74b43d1443a243c170&report-filepath=%2aauthfile.c&report-id=1930445> > In this case function `fileno` returns -1 because of failure, but this is not > indicated in a `NoteTag`. This is a correct result, only the note is missing. > This problem can be solved if a note is displayed on every branch ("case") of > the standard C functions. But this leads to many notes at un-interesting > places. If the note is displayed only at "interesting" values another > difficulty shows up: The note disappears from places where it should be shown > because the "interestingness" is not set, for example at conditions of `if` > statement. So the solution may require more work. This case with function > `fileno` occurs 13 times in all the tested projects. Could you elaborate on what do you mean by "The note disappears from places where it should be shown because the "interestingness" is not set, for example at conditions of `if` statement.". A short example would do the job I think. I looked at the TPs, and if the violation was introduced by an assumption (instead of an assignment), then it's really hard to spot which assumption is important for the bug. I wonder if we could add the `TrackConstraintBRVisitor` to the bugreport to "highlight" that particular assumption/place. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D152436/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D152436 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
