Szelethus added inline comments.
================
Comment at:
lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/UninitializedObject/UninitializedObjectChecker.cpp:448-449
Loc ThisLoc = Context.getSValBuilder().getCXXThis(CtorDecl->getParent(),
Context.getStackFrame());
----------------
NoQ wrote:
> This totally needs `assert(CtorDecl == Context.getStackFrame()->getDecl())`.
> Otherwise we're in big trouble because we'll be looking into a this-region
> that doesn't exist on this stack frame.
>
> On second thought, though, i guess we should put this assertion into the
> constructor of `CXXThisRegion`. I'll do this.
>
> Also there's an overload of `getCXXThis` that accepts the method itself, no
> need to get parent.
Ummmm that wouldn't be very nice, because...
================
Comment at:
lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/UninitializedObject/UninitializedObjectChecker.cpp:456-483
static bool willObjectBeAnalyzedLater(const CXXConstructorDecl *Ctor,
CheckerContext &Context) {
- Optional<nonloc::LazyCompoundVal> CurrentObject = getObjectVal(Ctor,
Context);
- if (!CurrentObject)
+ const TypedValueRegion *CurrRegion = getConstructedRegion(Ctor, Context);
+ if (!CurrRegion)
return false;
----------------
...`willBeAnalyzerLater()` relies on this, and it uses all sorts of constructor
decls to check whether `Context.getLocationContext()->getDecl()` would be a
subregion of another object. Are you sure that this is incorrect?
Repository:
rC Clang
https://reviews.llvm.org/D51300
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
