Charusso marked 4 inline comments as done. Charusso added a comment. In D64680#1584315 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D64680#1584315>, @NoQ wrote:
> P.S. I think you should attach the report to Phabricator directly, as the > link will expire as soon as these reports get regenerated. Luckily the stable scan-build namings are stable, so that is why I picked that handy option. ================ Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/MallocChecker.cpp:56-58 + // If this checker does not model the allocation. + DoNothing, + // Reference to allocated memory. ---------------- NoQ wrote: > Charusso wrote: > > NoQ wrote: > > > We already have `Escaped`, it's the same thing in practice. > > It is more strict than `Escaped`, also it made for the purpose of > > `PSK_EscapeOther` to force out we lost the entire pointer and do not make > > false warnings of use-after-free. > How exactly is it more strict? I.e., what warnings are getting suppressed by > you that aren't going to be suppressed if you use `Escaped` instead? After some measurements the previously attached report has nothing to do with strictness, just we really miss some escaping. Reverted that. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D64680/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D64680 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
