steakhal added reviewers: Szelethus, steakhal. steakhal added a comment. tldr; static-analyzer fixits are not completely implemented. We don't even have tests for it, which is a shame. When I passed the `apply-fixits`, it modified the input source file - as I expected. Then I tried the `-analyzer-output=text` and suddenly it inserted the fixit 2 times xD, which is less than ideal and we should fix this. And I'm expecting many more bugs with this feature.
There is a `clang/test/Analysis/check-analyzer-fixit.py` script which could be invoked by a RUN line like this: // RUN: %check-analyzer-fixit %s %t -analyzer-checker=core At least, the comment of that script says so. --- I'm quite skeptical about inserting such fixits in general - regarding path-sensitive analysis. For fixits, we should be confident that some property holds, but the static analyzer might conclude erroneously that a given pointer is null resulting in a **bad** fixit. Thus, relying on this might be dangerous. You can read more about false-positive cases regarding null pointers in the `clang/include/clang/StaticAnalyzer/Core/AnalyzerOptions.def`, namely `suppress-null-return-paths`, `avoid-suppressing-null-argument-paths`, `suppress-inlined-defensive-checks`. These options were introduced for mitigating such false-positive null pointer deref reports. Let me invite @Szelethus for his expertise in the null pointer checker. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D123352/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D123352 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
