Charusso added a comment. Thank you guys for investigating it!
In D69726#2671734 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69726#2671734>, @vsavchenko wrote: > 2. The analyzer doesn't explain why it thinks that `guc_malloc` returns null > pointer. I find it alarming that it might assume it for all the wrong > reasons. In D69726#2673178 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69726#2673178>, @NoQ wrote: > We should still investigate the tracking bug though, i.e. why path in > `guc_malloc()` isn't explained. What I have seen back in the days is that: uninitialized variables and variables storing `NULL` are not attached to regions so we cannot map notes to their origin region and we cannot track them. That is where `trackExpressionValue()` tries to attach notes based on changes in the Store and with full of heuristics. The nature of heuristics and the fight of note-creation and note-suppression Reporters what you see. If we would prioritize to massage the `trackExpressionValue()` framework, count me in: I have half year of pai- programming in it, but I am out of the office. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D69726/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D69726 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
