NoQ added inline comments.
================
Comment at:
lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/UninitializedObject/UninitializedObjectChecker.cpp:448-449
Loc ThisLoc = Context.getSValBuilder().getCXXThis(CtorDecl->getParent(),
Context.getStackFrame());
----------------
Szelethus wrote:
> 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...
Yeah, i guess i'll have to think a bit deeper about this. I really want to
prevent invalid `CXXThisRegion`s from appearing, but it might be not that
simple.
================
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;
----------------
Szelethus wrote:
> ...`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?
I mean not the this-region of the object, but the `CXXThisRegion` itself, in
which this-region is stored. It is definitely not aliased across stack frames.
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
