george.karpenkov added a comment.
> we often run out of inlining stack depth limit
Can we consider increasing that limit? I'd much rather have a limit on maximum
path *length* (which we currently don't have), as longer paths are more likely
to be false positives.
On the other hand, I don't see that many issues with paths which perform too
many inlinings.
================
Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/MallocChecker.cpp:2835
+ // FIXME: Use regular expressions when they get marked as acceptable
+ // in the LLVM coding standard?
+ if (N.contains_lower("ptr") || N.contains_lower("pointer")) {
----------------
There's `lib/Support/Regex.cpp`?
================
Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/MallocChecker.cpp:2904
for (const LocationContext *LC = CurrentLC; LC; LC = LC->getParent()) {
- if (isa<CXXDestructorDecl>(LC->getDecl())) {
- assert(!ReleaseDestructorLC &&
- "There can be only one release point!");
- ReleaseDestructorLC = LC->getCurrentStackFrame();
- // It is unlikely that releasing memory is delegated to a destructor
- // inside a destructor of a shared pointer, because it's fairly hard
- // to pass the information that the pointer indeed needs to be
- // released into it. So we're only interested in the innermost
- // destructor.
- break;
+ if (const CXXDestructorDecl *DD =
+ dyn_cast<CXXDestructorDecl>(LC->getDecl())) {
----------------
auto
Repository:
rC Clang
https://reviews.llvm.org/D44281
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
