steakhal added inline comments.
================
Comment at:
clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/StdLibraryFunctionsChecker.cpp:836-837
+ NewState, NewNode,
+ C.getNoteTag([Msg](PathSensitiveBugReport &BR,
+ llvm::raw_ostream &OS) { OS << Msg; }));
}
----------------
This way each and every applied constraint will be displayed even if the given
argument does not constitute to the bug condition.
I recommend you branching within the lambda, on the interestingness of the
given argument constraint.
================
Comment at:
clang/test/Analysis/std-c-library-functions-arg-constraints.c:247-254
__two_constrained_args(x, y);
+ // bugpath-note@-1{{Applied constraint: The 1st arg should be within the
range [1, 1]}}
+ // bugpath-note@-2{{Applied constraint: The 2nd arg should be within the
range [1, 1]}}
+ //NOTE! Because of the second `clang_analyzer_eval` call we have two bug
+ //reports, thus the 'Applied constraint' notes appear twice.
+ // bugpath-note@-5{{Applied constraint: The 1st arg should be within the
range [1, 1]}}
+ // bugpath-note@-6{{Applied constraint: The 2nd arg should be within the
range [1, 1]}}
----------------
nit.
BTW I raised my related concerns about this elsewhere.
================
Comment at:
clang/test/Analysis/std-c-library-functions-arg-constraints.c:264-276
int __arg_constrained_twice(int);
void test_multiple_constraints_on_same_arg(int x) {
__arg_constrained_twice(x);
+ // bugpath-note@-1{{The 1st arg should be out of the range [1, 1]}}
+ // bugpath-note@-2{{The 1st arg should be out of the range [2, 2]}}
// Check that both constraints are applied and only one branch is there.
clang_analyzer_eval(x < 1 || x > 2); // \
----------------
I was puzzled for a moment on why do you have two notes here.
By checking the definition of `__arg_constrained_twice()`, I can see that it
has **two** `ArgConstraint`s.
Although, it shouldn't be a problem as on the UI we would visualize notes for
only a single bugreport. So it is probably clear that both of the notes are
valid and correspond to the given statement. It might look clunky in the LIT
test, but should be 'somewhat' readable in real life.
You should take no action here. I leave this comment just for the record.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D101526/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D101526
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
