donat.nagy added a comment.
In D152436#4432736 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D152436#4432736>, @balazske wrote:
> [...]
> From these two solutions, which one is better? (Show many unnecessary notes,
> or show only necessary ones but lose some of the useful notes too.)
I think we must avoid polluting the environment with unnecessary notes
(especially if we'd emit "many" of them), so I strongly suggest option 2.
Later it would be possible to fix the limitations of the interestingness
system, e.g. by introducing a "mark all symbols in this expression as
interesting" function. Perhaps we should open a separate discussion about this
on discourse -- but this review and the de-alpha-ing of StdCLibraryFunctions
should not be delayed by this tangentially related engine improvement!
Personally I think it's completely acceptable if the analyzer sometimes emits
bug reports that are true positives but lack a message like
"expected-note{{Function returns 1}}" as I'd guess that in the majority of
these cases it wouldn't be terribly difficult for the user to manually derive
this information from the context. (I'd say that even the previously
highlighted fileno report
<https://codechecker-demo.eastus.cloudapp.azure.com/Default/report-detail?run=memcached_1.6.8_stdclibraryfunctions_test&is-unique=on&diff-type=New&checker-name=unix.StdCLibraryFunctions&report-hash=2bf08110160cdf74b43d1443a243c170&report-filepath=%2aauthfile.c&report-id=1930445>
is acceptable -- it's surprising at first, but all bug reports come with an
implicit //"On a certain execution path..."// prefix and in this case it's easy
to see that "certain" = "when fileno returns -1".)
If these issues produce //lots// of issues that are //very// confusing, then we
should put the affected functions behind off-by-default flags, finish this
review process, and revisit them later when the interestingness system is
improved; but based on the available information I don't think that's necessary.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D152436/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D152436
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
