NagyDonat wrote:
The first two commits in this PR are separately reviewed at
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/122246 and I intend to merge them
(squashed into a single commit) through that PR.
**In this PR please only review the third commit [[NFC][analyzer][docs]
Restore/remove orph
@@ -0,0 +1,208 @@
+FAQ and How to Deal with Common False Positives
+===
+
+.. contents::
+ :local:
+
+Custom Assertions
+-
+
+Q: How do I tell the analyzer that I do not want the bug being reported here
since my custom
@@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
+//===-- MemSpaces.cpp -*- C++
-*--//
+//
+// Part of the LLVM Project, under the Apache License v2.0 with LLVM
Exceptions.
+// See https://llvm.org/LICENSE.txt for license information.
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: Apa
NagyDonat wrote:
> The only spot I thought was questionable to change is this lower bound check
> in `ArrayBoundCheckerV2`; I think it is fine to leave unchanged for now,
> thoughts?
>
> https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/7e0758d2ead53bd4288989b8b2eda218cd6dc34a/clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer
NagyDonat wrote:
@Xazax-hun
When you write that this commit "makes memspaces a bit more error prone to use.
Do you think we could find a way to prevent using isa on memspaces?" do I
understand it correctly you mean that it's error-prone to use
`isa<...>(MR->getMemorySpace())` directly? This e
https://github.com/NagyDonat approved this pull request.
LGTM, thanks!
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/121781
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/NagyDonat created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/122246
This commit migrates the contents of 'annotations.html' in the old HTML-based
documentation of the Clang static analyzer to the new RST-based documentation.
During this conversion I reordered the sections of
https://github.com/NagyDonat updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/119388
From cb9b5ef4d8b0ed8e67276947525d327c547424fc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Don=C3=A1t=20Nagy?=
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2024 17:22:58 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 1/9] [analyzer] Don't assume third iteration in
NagyDonat wrote:
> My bad. I thought I already approved this one.
No problem, I didn't intend to merge this during the Christmas period (when I
was on vacation and didn't want to monitor the effects of the change).
> Please mention this in the release notes.
I added a paragraph to the release
https://github.com/NagyDonat closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/119388
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/NagyDonat updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/119388
From cb9b5ef4d8b0ed8e67276947525d327c547424fc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Don=C3=A1t=20Nagy?=
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2024 17:22:58 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 1/8] [analyzer] Don't assume third iteration in
NagyDonat wrote:
If I understand correctly, I handled every review suggestion.
@steakhal If there are no additional suggestions, I'd be grateful for an
approval. (My follow-up commit is mostly ready, I'll release it soon after
merging this.)
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/119388
__
NagyDonat wrote:
The LLVM Buildbot failure is clearly unrelated to this commit -- it seems to be
a straightforward flakiness on a completely unrelated part of the project.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/119388
___
cfe-commits mailing list
c
https://github.com/NagyDonat edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/127117
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/NagyDonat edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/127117
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
NagyDonat wrote:
> So I'm still mildly in favor of simply saying "uninitialized". It may or may
> not be someone else's actively used memory but that's beyond the programmer's
> control and they know it (hopefully). It would be somewhat dishonest to give
> the user an impression that this chec
https://github.com/NagyDonat updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/127117
From d806869ad5f7465cb771c3d918de4add46854571 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Don=C3=A1t=20Nagy?=
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2025 20:31:55 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] [analyzer] Add hack in ArrayBound to cover
https://github.com/NagyDonat updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/127062
From c3dc63db8914d759b6c58611b7448d4e83c66752 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Don=C3=A1t=20Nagy?=
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2025 11:35:45 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] [analyzer][NFC] Add ArrayBound tests to doc
@@ -194,3 +194,34 @@ char test_comparison_with_extent_symbol(struct incomplete
*p) {
return ((char *)p)[-1]; // no-warning
}
+int table[256], small_table[128];
+int test_cast_to_unsigned(signed char x) {
+ unsigned char y = x;
+ if (x >= 0)
+return x;
+ // FIXME: Her
https://github.com/NagyDonat edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/127062
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/NagyDonat edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/127062
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/NagyDonat updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/127062
From c3dc63db8914d759b6c58611b7448d4e83c66752 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Don=C3=A1t=20Nagy?=
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2025 11:35:45 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] [analyzer][NFC] Add ArrayBound tests to doc
https://github.com/NagyDonat closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/127062
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/NagyDonat created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/127117
Currently there are many casts that are not modeled (i.e. ignored) by the
analyzer, which can cause paradox states (e.g. negative value stored in
`unsigned` variable) and false positive reports from various c
@@ -188,29 +189,50 @@ int test_cast_to_unsigned(signed char x) {
if (x >= 0)
return x;
// FIXME: Here the analyzer ignores the signed -> unsigned cast, and manages
to
- // load a negative value from an unsigned variable. This causes an underflow
- // report, which is
https://github.com/NagyDonat edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/127117
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -394,14 +394,13 @@ static bool tryDividePair(std::optional &Val1,
return false;
const bool Val1HasRemainder = Val1 && *Val1 % Divisor;
const bool Val2HasRemainder = Val2 && *Val2 % Divisor;
- if (!Val1HasRemainder && !Val2HasRemainder) {
-if (Val1)
- *Val1
https://github.com/NagyDonat created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/126941
Two small stylistic improvements in code that I wrote ~a year ago:
1. fix a typo in a comment; and
2. simplify the code of `tryDividePair` by swapping the true and the false
branches.
From a0b6f3aff5e639d4388
@@ -211,17 +211,15 @@ def DereferenceModeling : Checker<"DereferenceModeling">,
Documentation,
Hidden;
-def NullDereferenceChecker : Checker<"NullDereference">,
- HelpText<"Check for dereferences of null pointers">,
- CheckerOptions<[
-CmdLineOption
- ]>,
- Documen
https://github.com/NagyDonat closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/126941
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/NagyDonat approved this pull request.
Let's hope that this fixes the issue.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/127406
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-
https://github.com/NagyDonat approved this pull request.
I'm happy to see this opportunity to improve the code quality
:slightly_smiling_face:
I'm not familiar with the initialization procedure of the analyzer, but this
change should affect every analysis run equally, so if you managed to run
https://github.com/NagyDonat requested changes to this pull request.
Overall I like the change, but I feel that the analyzer option name
`suppress-all-address-spaces` is too misleading (see inline comment for more
detailed suggestion).
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/127191
_
@@ -0,0 +1,77 @@
+// RUN: %clang_analyze_cc1 -triple x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
-analyzer-checker=core,alpha.core -std=gnu99 -analyzer-config
suppress-all-address-spaces=false -verify=x86-nosuppress %s
+// RUN: %clang_analyze_cc1 -triple x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
-analyzer-checker=core,alph
NagyDonat wrote:
I tried to write down my rough ideas as a concrete commit, but I don't have
enough mental acuity for it today. I'll try to make another attempt on Monday
-- but if you wish to close this commit, then it's also OK if I do this
refactoring in a separate follow-up commit.
https:
@@ -170,6 +157,16 @@ disable this behavior with the option
obj->x = 1; // warn
}
+Null pointer dereferences of pointers with address spaces are not always
defined
+as error. Specifically on x86/x86-64 target if the pointer address space is
+256 (x86 GS Segment), 257 (x86
@@ -395,6 +395,19 @@ ANALYZER_OPTION(
"flex\" won't be analyzed.",
true)
+ANALYZER_OPTION(
+bool, ShouldSuppressAddressSpaces, "suppress-all-address-spaces",
NagyDonat wrote:
The name of this analyzer option is misleading: the natural guess is tha
@@ -2919,6 +2916,39 @@ Check for assignment of a fixed address to a pointer.
p = (int *) 0x1; // warn
}
+.. _alpha-core-FixedAddressDereference:
+
+alpha.core.FixedAddressDereference (C, C++, ObjC)
+"
+Check for dereferen
https://github.com/NagyDonat edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/127191
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/NagyDonat closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/127814
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/NagyDonat approved this pull request.
Anyway, let's just merge this as it is now.
The code is basically OK, I still don't have the brainpower to hold all the
details in my mind and if I'll catch some divine inspiration in the future, I
can still refactor this as a follow-up
https://github.com/NagyDonat edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/127602
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/NagyDonat closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/128013
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
NagyDonat wrote:
I'm merging this now because I feel that the current reviews are sufficient for
this simple NFC change. If there are any further observations/suggestions, feel
free to mention them -- I can address them in a follow-up commit.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/128013
_
https://github.com/NagyDonat created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/128508
Before commit 6e17ed9 the test files `outofbound.c` and `outofbound-notwork.c`
tested the behavior of the old alpha checker `alpha.security.ArrayBound` (V1);
then that commit converted them into tests for the
@@ -1,130 +0,0 @@
-// RUN: %clang_analyze_cc1 -Wno-array-bounds -verify %s \
-// RUN: -analyzer-checker=core \
-// RUN: -analyzer-checker=unix \
-// RUN: -analyzer-checker=security.ArrayBound \
-// RUN: -analyzer-config unix.DynamicMemoryModeling:Optimistic=true
-
-typedef
https://github.com/NagyDonat commented:
I annotated `outofbound.c` with inline comments to describe why I removed most
of the testcases within it.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/128508
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
@@ -1,130 +0,0 @@
-// RUN: %clang_analyze_cc1 -Wno-array-bounds -verify %s \
-// RUN: -analyzer-checker=core \
-// RUN: -analyzer-checker=unix \
-// RUN: -analyzer-checker=security.ArrayBound \
-// RUN: -analyzer-config unix.DynamicMemoryModeling:Optimistic=true
-
-typedef
@@ -1,130 +0,0 @@
-// RUN: %clang_analyze_cc1 -Wno-array-bounds -verify %s \
-// RUN: -analyzer-checker=core \
-// RUN: -analyzer-checker=unix \
-// RUN: -analyzer-checker=security.ArrayBound \
-// RUN: -analyzer-config unix.DynamicMemoryModeling:Optimistic=true
-
-typedef
@@ -1,130 +0,0 @@
-// RUN: %clang_analyze_cc1 -Wno-array-bounds -verify %s \
-// RUN: -analyzer-checker=core \
-// RUN: -analyzer-checker=unix \
-// RUN: -analyzer-checker=security.ArrayBound \
-// RUN: -analyzer-config unix.DynamicMemoryModeling:Optimistic=true
-
-typedef
@@ -1,130 +0,0 @@
-// RUN: %clang_analyze_cc1 -Wno-array-bounds -verify %s \
-// RUN: -analyzer-checker=core \
-// RUN: -analyzer-checker=unix \
-// RUN: -analyzer-checker=security.ArrayBound \
-// RUN: -analyzer-config unix.DynamicMemoryModeling:Optimistic=true
-
-typedef
@@ -1,130 +0,0 @@
-// RUN: %clang_analyze_cc1 -Wno-array-bounds -verify %s \
-// RUN: -analyzer-checker=core \
-// RUN: -analyzer-checker=unix \
-// RUN: -analyzer-checker=security.ArrayBound \
-// RUN: -analyzer-config unix.DynamicMemoryModeling:Optimistic=true
-
-typedef
@@ -1,130 +0,0 @@
-// RUN: %clang_analyze_cc1 -Wno-array-bounds -verify %s \
-// RUN: -analyzer-checker=core \
-// RUN: -analyzer-checker=unix \
-// RUN: -analyzer-checker=security.ArrayBound \
-// RUN: -analyzer-config unix.DynamicMemoryModeling:Optimistic=true
-
-typedef
@@ -1,130 +0,0 @@
-// RUN: %clang_analyze_cc1 -Wno-array-bounds -verify %s \
-// RUN: -analyzer-checker=core \
-// RUN: -analyzer-checker=unix \
-// RUN: -analyzer-checker=security.ArrayBound \
-// RUN: -analyzer-config unix.DynamicMemoryModeling:Optimistic=true
-
-typedef
https://github.com/NagyDonat edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/128508
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -1,130 +0,0 @@
-// RUN: %clang_analyze_cc1 -Wno-array-bounds -verify %s \
-// RUN: -analyzer-checker=core \
-// RUN: -analyzer-checker=unix \
-// RUN: -analyzer-checker=security.ArrayBound \
-// RUN: -analyzer-config unix.DynamicMemoryModeling:Optimistic=true
-
-typedef
@@ -1,130 +0,0 @@
-// RUN: %clang_analyze_cc1 -Wno-array-bounds -verify %s \
-// RUN: -analyzer-checker=core \
-// RUN: -analyzer-checker=unix \
-// RUN: -analyzer-checker=security.ArrayBound \
-// RUN: -analyzer-config unix.DynamicMemoryModeling:Optimistic=true
-
-typedef
@@ -1,130 +0,0 @@
-// RUN: %clang_analyze_cc1 -Wno-array-bounds -verify %s \
-// RUN: -analyzer-checker=core \
-// RUN: -analyzer-checker=unix \
-// RUN: -analyzer-checker=security.ArrayBound \
-// RUN: -analyzer-config unix.DynamicMemoryModeling:Optimistic=true
-
-typedef
@@ -1,130 +0,0 @@
-// RUN: %clang_analyze_cc1 -Wno-array-bounds -verify %s \
-// RUN: -analyzer-checker=core \
-// RUN: -analyzer-checker=unix \
-// RUN: -analyzer-checker=security.ArrayBound \
-// RUN: -analyzer-config unix.DynamicMemoryModeling:Optimistic=true
-
-typedef
https://github.com/NagyDonat edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/128508
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/NagyDonat approved this pull request.
LGTM, I agree that "uninitialized" is a better phrasing -- it's shorter and
explicitly names the "normal" reason for getting `UndefinedVal`s.
> I think the right path is to issue a more precise error message for
> out-of-bounds reads. As
NagyDonat wrote:
> I wonder if we should rename the directory to something like
> `clang/test/StaticAnalyzer` to avoid confusion in the future.
I also considered renaming the directory to `clang/test/StaticAnalyzer` and I
would definitely support this idea if it doesn't cause too many difficul
https://github.com/NagyDonat created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/128013
Because they are the last two remaining test files that appeared under
`clang/test/Analysis` but were unrelated to the clang static analyzer. For
background see the following discourse thread:
https://discou
NagyDonat wrote:
The CI failure is in a completely unrelated test file; I'm pretty confident
that it's unrelated to my commit.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/127814
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.
@@ -185,13 +185,11 @@ class CheckerManager {
StringRef OptionName,
StringRef ExpectedValueDesc) const;
- using CheckerRef = CheckerBase *;
using CheckerTag = const void *;
- using CheckerDtor =
https://github.com/NagyDonat created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/128887
Previously checker objects were created by raw `new` calls, which necessitated
managing and calling their destructors explicitly. This commit refactors this
convoluted logic by introducing `unique_ptr`s that
NagyDonat wrote:
> Do you want me to condense the change to a single commit as recommended
> [here](https://llvm.org/docs/GitHub.html#landing-your-change)? Alternately, I
> could post a draft commit message in a comment for use with GitHub's UI for a
> squash-merge.
Please put a draft commit
NagyDonat wrote:
Thanks for the update, I'm merging the commit.
By the way, Github also has built-in support for viewing the before-the-edit
version of the PR description:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-pr
https://github.com/NagyDonat closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/126596
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -185,13 +185,11 @@ class CheckerManager {
StringRef OptionName,
StringRef ExpectedValueDesc) const;
- using CheckerRef = CheckerBase *;
using CheckerTag = const void *;
- using CheckerDtor =
@@ -201,24 +199,24 @@ class CheckerManager {
template
CHECKER *registerChecker(AT &&... Args) {
CheckerTag tag = getTag();
-CheckerRef &ref = CheckerTags[tag];
-assert(!ref && "Checker already registered, use getChecker!");
-
-CHECKER *checker = new CHECKER
https://github.com/NagyDonat updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/128887
From 76f8417b8b46e7d036d98fa92890469654158e20 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Don=C3=A1t=20Nagy?=
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2025 15:41:46 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 1/5] [NFC][analyzer] Simplify ownership of check
https://github.com/NagyDonat updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/128887
From 76f8417b8b46e7d036d98fa92890469654158e20 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Don=C3=A1t=20Nagy?=
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2025 15:41:46 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 1/4] [NFC][analyzer] Simplify ownership of check
@@ -41,8 +42,8 @@ CheckerManager::CheckerManager(AnalyzerOptions &AOptions,
}
CheckerManager::~CheckerManager() {
NagyDonat wrote:
Good suggestion, I didn't know that `= default` works with out-of-line
declarations.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull
https://github.com/NagyDonat updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/128887
From 76f8417b8b46e7d036d98fa92890469654158e20 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Don=C3=A1t=20Nagy?=
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2025 15:41:46 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 1/6] [NFC][analyzer] Simplify ownership of check
NagyDonat wrote:
> That being said, I wonder if we should record the presence of casts when we
> produce `ElementRegion`s to better help checks suppress potentially false
> results. This would just make some workarounds easier to write rather than
> having full modelling.
After stabilizing th
https://github.com/NagyDonat approved this pull request.
LGTM, thanks for the improvements :)
In the follow-up commits let's pay attention to the `ArrayBound` lower bound
check where the code says that _"A symbolic region in unknown space represents
an unknown pointer that may point into the m
NagyDonat wrote:
As I thought a bit more about the reorganization that I suggested, I realized
that it can be summarized as **we should synchronize adding the default
`Unknown` binding and calling `escapeValue`** -- because they correspond to the
two end-points of the same "_this_ value is sto
https://github.com/NagyDonat edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/127602
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -483,6 +483,14 @@ ANALYZER_OPTION(
"behavior, set the option to 0.",
5)
+ANALYZER_OPTION(
+unsigned, RegionStoreMaxBindingFanOut, "region-store-max-binding-fanout",
+"This option limits how many sub-bindings a single binding operation can "
+"scatter int
@@ -2782,6 +2865,8 @@ RegionBindingsRef
RegionStoreManager::bindStruct(RegionBindingsConstRef B,
if (VI == VE)
break;
+ if (NewB.hasExhaustedBindingLimit())
+return NewB.escapeValues(VI, VE);
NagyDonat wrote:
This is confusing to r
@@ -176,31 +177,59 @@ class RegionBindingsRef : public
llvm::ImmutableMapRefpush_back(V);
+return *this;
+ }
+ RegionBindingsRef escapeValues(nonloc::CompoundVal::iterator Begin,
+ nonloc::CompoundVal::iterator End) const {
+for (SVal V :
https://github.com/NagyDonat edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/127602
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/NagyDonat commented:
I'm really happy that you managed to track down and fix these slow corner
cases, and overall I like the code changes, but I there were a few places where
the code was difficult to understand for me (although this may be also related
to the fact that I di
https://github.com/NagyDonat edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/127602
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
NagyDonat wrote:
(I'm writing a review right now, please wait a bit -- a few hours -- before
merging.)
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/127602
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/list
NagyDonat wrote:
> An interesting thing could be to track in the analyzer the number of
> suppressed underflows (i.e.: the number of times we resorted to hacking with
> this solution). That way, we could have more information about how far we
> deviate from the precise modelling. This could pr
https://github.com/NagyDonat closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/127117
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -176,31 +177,59 @@ class RegionBindingsRef : public
llvm::ImmutableMapRefpush_back(V);
+return *this;
+ }
+ RegionBindingsRef escapeValues(nonloc::CompoundVal::iterator Begin,
+ nonloc::CompoundVal::iterator End) const {
+for (SVal V :
https://github.com/NagyDonat edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/127602
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -359,7 +326,80 @@ class RegionBindingsRef : public
llvm::ImmutableMapRef`
Perhaps use `Limited` instead of `Bounded` in the name of this class, because
the common linguistical origin of the words "Bounded" and "Binding" makes the
current name a bit hard to parse. (I almost r
https://github.com/NagyDonat commented:
> I'm sorry if the poor code quality hindered the comprehension.
I wouldn't say "poor code quality" -- the code was difficult to understand, but
mostly due to the inherent complexity of the logic that's being implemented
here.
> In short, I decided to p
https://github.com/NagyDonat edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/127602
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/NagyDonat created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/127814
Because it is one of the three "misplaced" test files that appeared under
`/clang/test/Analysis` but were unrelated to the clang static analyzer. For
background see the following discourse thread:
https://di
https://github.com/NagyDonat closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/128887
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/NagyDonat closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/129697
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
NagyDonat wrote:
No problem, in git we can eventually track down and resolve everything.
However, let's try to pay attention to putting logically separate tests into
separate files -- our tests are badly disorganized, but we can gradually
improve the average quality if we spend some attention
NagyDonat wrote:
:thinking: Instead of this change I could also imagine introducing an
accurately named explicit method – e.g. `StringRef toStringRef()` – and using
that for all `CheckerNameRef` → `StringRef` conversions (including the half
dozen cases where the codebase already uses `operator
https://github.com/NagyDonat created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/130780
`CheckerNameRef` is a trivial wrapper around a `StringRef` which is guaranteed
to be owned by the `CheckerRegistry` (the only `friend` of the class) because
other code can't call the private constructor.
Thi
https://github.com/NagyDonat updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/129697
From 3a3236237e193fb1d1de1aed72e128195d4d0730 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Don=C3=A1t=20Nagy?=
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2025 11:44:18 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] [NFC][analyzer] OOB test consolidation IV: r
901 - 1000 of 1140 matches
Mail list logo
