NoQ added a comment.
I guess this makes sense. The results look good. I'm slightly worried that
we're fighting the symptoms rather than the root cause here: why were these
values tracked that far in the first place when we already have no interest in
tracking them at the end of the function? I.e., i suspect that your "mild
tracking mode" would get rid of a lot of those automagically.
================
Comment at: clang/test/Analysis/uninit-vals.c:181
void testUseHalfPoint() {
- struct Point p = getHalfPoint(); // expected-note{{Calling 'getHalfPoint'}}
- // expected-note@-1{{Returning from
'getHalfPoint'}}
- // expected-note@-2{{'p' initialized here}}
+ struct Point p = getHalfPoint(); // expected-note{{'p' initialized here}}
use(p); // expected-warning{{uninitialized}}
----------------
Huh, so there's not even a note in `getHalfPoint()`, just calling..returning?
This definitely needs some attention from `NoStoreFuncVisitor`.
Generally, i think this is probably the single place where we do really want
some info about what happens in `getHalfPoint()`. The report that consists only
of "p is initialized..." and "...p is uninitialized" is pretty weird. Btw,
could you write down the full warning text in this test? How bad this actually
is?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D64232/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D64232
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
