[PATCH] D99260: [analyzer] Fix false positives in inner pointer checker (PR49628)

alishuja added a comment. Herald added a subscriber: manas. Based on the comment from @vsavchenko , I had made an addition for a check for `__addressof` alongside `addressof` in the checker. What would be the correct way of pushing the diff here? Should I reopen this revision or use the update

[PATCH] D99260: [analyzer] Fix false positives in inner pointer checker (PR49628)

vsavchenko added a comment. In D99260#2751967 , @steakhal wrote: > In D99260#2704102 , @NoQ wrote: > >> In https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45786 the godbolt link shows that >> there are still problems with `a

[PATCH] D99260: [analyzer] Fix false positives in inner pointer checker (PR49628)

steakhal added a comment. In D99260#2704102 , @NoQ wrote: > In https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45786 the godbolt link shows that > there are still problems with `addressof` (yes, their "trunk" clang is fresh > enough). They seem to have `__addresso

[PATCH] D99260: [analyzer] Fix false positives in inner pointer checker (PR49628)

NoQ added a comment. In https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45786 the godbolt link shows that there are still problems with `addressof` (yes, their "trunk" clang is fresh enough). They seem to have `__addressof` instead of `addressof` so maybe we should cover that case real quick. Or maybe ou

[PATCH] D99260: [analyzer] Fix false positives in inner pointer checker (PR49628)

This revision was landed with ongoing or failed builds. This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rG663ac91ed1d6: [analyzer] Fix false positives in inner pointer checker (PR49628) (authored by vsavchenko). Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHA

[PATCH] D99260: [analyzer] Fix false positives in inner pointer checker (PR49628)

steakhal added a comment. I'm still not satisfied with the `addressof`, but I won't block this either. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D99260/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D99260 ___ cfe-com

[PATCH] D99260: [analyzer] Fix false positives in inner pointer checker (PR49628)

NoQ accepted this revision. NoQ added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. Looks great now, thanks! Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D99260/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D99260 ___

[PATCH] D99260: [analyzer] Fix false positives in inner pointer checker (PR49628)

vsavchenko updated this revision to Diff 336077. vsavchenko added a comment. Require std::data to accept exactly 1 argument Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D99260/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D99260 Files: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/

[PATCH] D99260: [analyzer] Fix false positives in inner pointer checker (PR49628)

NoQ added a comment. > It does make sense to split these in two, but I'm not so sure about > `evalCall`. `evalCall` should work great for this purpose but definitely not in this checker. Also this checker would still exercise its `checkPostCall` so it would still need to be silenced even if `e

[PATCH] D99260: [analyzer] Fix false positives in inner pointer checker (PR49628)

martong added inline comments. Comment at: clang/test/Analysis/inner-pointer.cpp:23 + +char *data(std::string &c); + vsavchenko wrote: > martong wrote: > > Seems like all test are exercising with std::string, this looks like a > > legacy in this Checker. > > Sti

[PATCH] D99260: [analyzer] Fix false positives in inner pointer checker (PR49628)

vsavchenko added inline comments. Comment at: clang/test/Analysis/inner-pointer.cpp:23 + +char *data(std::string &c); + martong wrote: > Seems like all test are exercising with std::string, this looks like a legacy > in this Checker. > Still, I miss a bit at lea

[PATCH] D99260: [analyzer] Fix false positives in inner pointer checker (PR49628)

martong added inline comments. Comment at: clang/test/Analysis/inner-pointer.cpp:23 + +char *data(std::string &c); + Seems like all test are exercising with std::string, this looks like a legacy in this Checker. Still, I miss a bit at least one test for the othe

[PATCH] D99260: [analyzer] Fix false positives in inner pointer checker (PR49628)

vsavchenko added a comment. In D99260#2650201 , @steakhal wrote: > I recommend splitting this into two. I would happily accept the part about > `std::data()`. > > IMO `std::addressof()` should be modelled via `evalCall` as a pure function, > instead of h

[PATCH] D99260: [analyzer] Fix false positives in inner pointer checker (PR49628)

steakhal added a comment. I recommend splitting this into two. I would happily accept the part about `std::data()`. IMO `std::addressof()` should be modelled via `evalCall` as a pure function, instead of hacking it into the `InnerPtrChecker`. It is overloaded to accept `const T&` as well, so th

[PATCH] D99260: [analyzer] Fix false positives in inner pointer checker (PR49628)

vsavchenko created this revision. vsavchenko added reviewers: NoQ, steakhal, xazax.hun, ASDenysPetrov. Herald added subscribers: martong, Charusso, dkrupp, donat.nagy, Szelethus, mikhail.ramalho, a.sidorin, rnkovacs, szepet, baloghadamsoftware. vsavchenko requested review of this revision. Herald