https://github.com/balazske closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/87322
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
=?utf-8?q?Balázs_Kéri?= ,
=?utf-8?q?Balázs_Kéri?=
Message-ID:
In-Reply-To:
https://github.com/NagyDonat approved this pull request.
Thanks for the update! Feel free to merge the commit and initiate the de-alpha
process.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/87322
https://github.com/balazske updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/87322
From 79bbe640c0d60744f484db9965865455b0b15246 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Bal=C3=A1zs=20K=C3=A9ri?=
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2024 09:59:48 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] [clang][analyzer] Add "pedantic" mode to
steakhal wrote:
> > Unless you plan to add more heuristics, I'd prefer a more concrete option
> > name, like AssumeSuccessfulWrites=true. This would better describe it imo.
>
> I do not like totally the name "Pedantic", it could be
> "AssumeOftenUncheckedOperationsMayFail". I am not sure if th
NagyDonat wrote:
I feel that "AssumeOftenUncheckedOperationsMayFail" does not provide more
information than "Pedantic" (≈ report issues that are often left unchecked),
while it is significantly longer, so my preferences are _Pedantic >
AssumeSuccessfulWrites > AssumeOftenUncheckedOperationsMay
balazske wrote:
> Unless you plan to add more heuristics, I'd prefer a more concrete option
> name, like AssumeSuccessfulWrites=true. This would better describe it imo.
I do not like totally the name "Pedantic", it could be
"AssumeOftenUncheckedOperationsMayFail". I am not sure if this behavio
NagyDonat wrote:
Personally I like the habit that these options are consistently named
"Pedantic" because it highlights that they all provide "true, but not helpful"
results. When the users see that an option is named "Pedantic", many of them
will be able to immediately conclude that they are
https://github.com/steakhal commented:
Unless you plan to add more heuristics, I'd prefer a more concrete option name,
like AssumeSuccessfulWrites=true.
This would better describe it imo.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/87322
___
cfe-commits
@@ -1264,16 +1277,18 @@ void StreamChecker::evalFseek(const FnDescription
*Desc, const CallEvent &Call,
if (!E.Init(Desc, Call, C, State))
return;
- // Bifurcate the state into failed and non-failed.
- // Return zero on success, -1 on error.
+ // Add success state.
@@ -1094,6 +1104,9 @@ void StreamChecker::evalFprintf(const FnDescription *Desc,
// Add transition for the failed state. The resulting value of the file
// position indicator for the stream is indeterminate.
+ if (!PedanticMode)
+return;
+
NagyDonat w
https://github.com/NagyDonat approved this pull request.
Good change, I have a few minor suggestions that tweak comment placement.
I felt that it's confusing to have an "Add a transition for" comment directly
followed by a seemingly unrelated `if (!PedanticMode)` block -- my suggestions
swap t
@@ -1059,6 +1066,9 @@ void StreamChecker::evalFputx(const FnDescription *Desc,
const CallEvent &Call,
// Add transition for the failed state. The resulting value of the file
// position indicator for the stream is indeterminate.
+ if (!PedanticMode)
+return;
+
--
https://github.com/NagyDonat edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/87322
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang
Author: Balázs Kéri (balazske)
Changes
The checker may create failure branches for all stream write operations only if
the new option "pedantic" is set to true.
Result of the write operations is often not checked in typical code. If failure
branc
https://github.com/balazske created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/87322
The checker may create failure branches for all stream write operations only if
the new option "pedantic" is set to true.
Result of the write operations is often not checked in typical code. If failure
branches
15 matches
Mail list logo
