Sounds like a good start. On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 11:55 AM Tom Roeder via Phabricator <revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote: > > tmroeder marked an inline comment as done. > tmroeder added inline comments. > > > ================ > Comment at: clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/linuxkernel-must-check-errs.c:6 > +// Prototypes of the error functions. > +void * __must_check ERR_PTR(long error); > +long __must_check PTR_ERR(const void *ptr); > ---------------- > nickdesaulniers wrote: > > Let's come up with another check; `__must_check` has a bug upstream in the > > kernel sources (I looked into this maybe a month ago). The kernel disables > > a warning group that this would be under, if I re-enable the lone warning, > > then this works properly at compile time. (I forget the warning, and should > > have filed a bug). Point being, fixing this upstream in kernel sources is > > preferable to me to a clang tidy check, but it's a good start. > Good point. How about the related smatch checks in > https://repo.or.cz/smatch.git/blob_plain/HEAD:/check_err_ptr_deref.c > > It looks for cases where possible ERR_PTR values are dereferenced (wrong > because it's not a pointer), and passing non-negative values to ERR_PTR. > > What do you think? > > > Repository: > rG LLVM Github Monorepo > > CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION > https://reviews.llvm.org/D59963/new/ > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D59963 > > >
-- Thanks, ~Nick Desaulniers _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
