Hi David, (subject's line totally stolen inspired from Eric's) Last week as you know had some special circumstances therefore not much has been done.
I've changed my in-progress patch about trimming the system headers event to fit your suggestions from https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-July/625245.html. I had suggested that we keep events (1) (2) (11) and (12) in the reproducer https://godbolt.org/z/sb9dM9Gqa but after comparing it to your first suggestion of only keeping (11), I don't know which one to keep. Just (11) has the benefit of being really concise and verbose enough in this case, mimicking the behavior of a raw pointer. However having the call site and return site might be helpful for the user, e.g. to understand what template arguments were deduced. I think we could still have events (11) and (12): what if for call and > return events we consider the location of both the call site and the > called function: we suppress if both are in a system header, but don't > suppress if only one is a system header. That way by default we'd show > the call into a system header and show the return from the system > header, but we'd suppress all the implementation details within the > system header. > > Does that seem like it could work? It works and is one the two implementations I have. Now we just have to decide which is better, and I'll submit the patch to the mail list. Some updates too on the added support of placement new What do you think of "null-dereference" superceding "use-of-unitialized-value" ? Both can occur at the same statement (see https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-July/625844.html) If you think adding this supercedes_p to null-deref is acceptable, then I'll fix PR 110830 <https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110830> before submitting the placement new patch. Otherwise, I've been working on what we talked about last time, i.e. moving the tests under gcc.dg/analyzer to c-c++-common/analyzer. It is still in progress (about 100 tests done out of 700+). A question on that front: What is the purpose of test gcc.dg/analyzer/data-model-11.c ? int test (void) { unsigned char *s = (unsigned char *) "abc"; char *t = "xyz"; return s[1] + t[1]; } Are the non-constness of the strings being tested or only their sign ? Thanks Benjamin.
