balazske added inline comments.
================
Comment at:
clang/include/clang/StaticAnalyzer/Core/PathSensitive/CallEvent.h:403
/// frame. May fail; returns null on failure.
- const VarRegion *getParameterLocation(unsigned Index,
- unsigned BlockCount) const;
+ const TypedValueRegion *getParameterLocation(unsigned Index,
+ unsigned BlockCount) const;
----------------
I would expect that this returns a `ParamRegion` (from the name of the
function). (The implementation shows that the type can just be changed.)
================
Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/ValistChecker.cpp:176-180
if (const auto *DeclReg = Reg->getAs<DeclRegion>()) {
if (isa<ParmVarDecl>(DeclReg->getDecl()))
Reg = C.getState()->getSVal(SV.castAs<Loc>()).getAsRegion();
+ } else if (const auto *ParamReg = Reg->getAs<ParamRegion>()) {
+ Reg = C.getState()->getSVal(SV.castAs<Loc>()).getAsRegion();
----------------
baloghadamsoftware wrote:
> Szelethus wrote:
> > This is interesting. I looked up `DeclRegion`, and it seems to be the
> > region that is tied to a `ValueDecl`. `VarDecl` is a subtype of
> > `ValueDecl`, and `ParmVarDecl` is a subtype of `VarDecl`, so wouldn't it
> > make sense for `ParamRegion` to be a subtype of `VarRegion`?
> `DeclRegion` stores the `Decl`, `ParamRegion` retrieves it based on the
> `Index` it stores. There is no is-a relation between them.
During the lifetime of a `ParamRegion` is it possible that it will return
different `Decl` objects?
================
Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/BugReporterVisitors.cpp:745
// Can only reasonably pretty-print DeclRegions.
+ if (const auto *DR = dyn_cast<DeclRegion>(R)) {
----------------
This comment is not fully true any more.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/CallEvent.cpp:255
// correspond to the stack frame's function declaration.
assert(VR->getStackFrame() == SFC);
----------------
Is it correct to create `VR` only to have this assert?
================
Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/ExprEngineCXX.cpp:357
V = *OptV;
- else
- break;
+ else break;
State = addObjectUnderConstruction(State, {CE, Idx}, LCtx, V);
----------------
This `break` is at wrong place.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D79704/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D79704
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
