NoQ added inline comments.
================ Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/BugReporterVisitors.cpp:965 + + // Performing operator `&' on an lvalue expression is essentially a no-op. + // Then, if we are taking addresses of fields or elements, these are also ---------------- zaks.anna wrote: > NoQ wrote: > > alexshap wrote: > > > "Address-of" operator can be overloaded, > > > just wondering - doest this code work correctly in that case ? > > In this case we'd see a `CXXOperatorCallExpr` instead of `UnaryOperator` > > (all hail clang AST!). > Adding a test case for that would be good. Not sure. There are so many things that work differently in this scenario that i'm having troubles coming up with a test that tests exactly that and doesn't throw or not throw a warning for a dozen of other reasons. I'm even having troubles understanding what particular overload are we interested in. Did you have anything specific in mind? ================ Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/Store.cpp:440 // well, although in reality we should return the offset added to that - // value. + // value. See also the similar FIXME in getLValueFieldOrIvar(). if (Base.isUnknownOrUndef() || Base.getAs<loc::ConcreteInt>()) ---------------- Note that this code doesn't really trigger; we return `UnknownVal()` somewhere above, as shown on the newly added tests. I suspect we may be missing valid null dereferences because of that; will have a look. https://reviews.llvm.org/D31982 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
