xazax.hun added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D15227#521781, @NoQ wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D15227#519239, @xazax.hun wrote:
>
> > I suspect that slightly different AST is generated for those architectures
> > that cause the different behavior. I will further investigate thos
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
Closed by commit rL279427: Reapply "[analyzer] Added valist related checkers."
(authored by xazax).
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D15227
Files:
cfe/trunk/include/clang/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/Checkers.t
NoQ added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D15227#519239, @xazax.hun wrote:
> I suspect that slightly different AST is generated for those architectures
> that cause the different behavior. I will further investigate those problems.
Seems so, because on my machine when i append `-triple
xazax.hun reopened this revision.
xazax.hun added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
It looks like it broke some of the build bots.
Error from the windows build bots:
error: 'note' diagnostics expected but not seen:
File
C:\Buildbot\Slave\llvm-clang-lld-x86_64-sc
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
Closed by commit rL279041: [analyzer] Added valist related checkers. (authored
by xazax).
Changed prior to commit:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D15227?vs=68157&id=68497#toc
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D15
xazax.hun updated this revision to Diff 68157.
xazax.hun marked 5 inline comments as done.
xazax.hun added a comment.
- Improvements according to review comments.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D15227
Files:
include/clang/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/Checkers.td
lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/CMakeLists.
NoQ added a comment.
The checker's in great shape! I see a few minor things, but that's it.
The checks are split into two sections ("uninitialized" and "unterminated"),
but there seem to be more auxiliary checks provided (eg. "copies into itself")
that are on for both checkers, do you think you
dcoughlin added inline comments.
Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/ValistChecker.cpp:177
@@ +176,3 @@
+ if (ExplodedNode *N = C.addTransition(State))
+reportLeakedVALists(LeakedVALists, "Initialized va_list", " is leaked", C,
+N);
---
xazax.hun marked 10 inline comments as done.
xazax.hun added a comment.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D15227
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
zaks.anna added inline comments.
Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/ValistChecker.cpp:31
@@ +30,3 @@
+struct VAListAcceptingFunc {
+ mutable IdentifierInfo *II;
+ StringRef FuncName;
It does not support ObjC methods.
I think this is most useful to checker
xazax.hun marked 9 inline comments as done.
xazax.hun added a comment.
It was tested on gcc and rAthena (https://github.com/rathena/rathena). It did
not find any issues in those projects, but I was able to find some issues that
I artificially put into those projects.
Comment a
zaks.anna added a comment.
Looks good overall; comments below.
Please, provide more information on real world code evaluation. Which codebases
this has been tested on? What was the false positive rate? How many real bugs
were found/fixed?
What is the criteria for taking it out of alpha?
Pleas
12 matches
Mail list logo
