Szelethus added inline comments.
================
Comment at:
lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/UninitializedObject/UninitializedObjectChecker.cpp:519
+
+ if (FirstAccess->getBeginLoc() < FirstGuard->getBeginLoc())
+ return true;
----------------
xazax.hun wrote:
> I am not sure if this is a reliable way to check if the access is before the
> guard.
>
> Consider:
> ```
> switch(x): {
> case 2: guard; access; break;
> case 1: access break;
> }
> ```
>
> Here, we have no particular ordering between the access in case 1 and the
> guard in case 2 at runtime. But relying on the source locations we might come
> to the false conclusion that there is. Loops, gotos can cause similar
> problems.
> I do understand that this might not be too easy to solve without traversing
> the cfg and we might not want to do that but I think we should at least add a
> test/todo.
> I am not sure if this is a reliable way to check if the access is before the
> guard.
I'm 100% sure it isn't. Using the CFG instead of matchers sounds like a great
and difficult to implement (at least to me, as I never touched them) idea. It
should get rid of the false negatives, at least in part.
> [...] I think we should at least add a test/todo.
There are some :)
https://reviews.llvm.org/D51866
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
