[cfe-dev] Missing ReturnStmt?

[Zong]

To Ted,
Yeah, AST is a better choice for me.
To Anna,
I just run "clang -cc1 -analyze -analyzer-checker=experimental.core.myChecker a.c".

Thank you for your help!
Best,
Zong




At 2012-02-07 03:10:46,"Ted Kremenek" <kremenek at apple.com> wrote:

On Feb 6, 2012, at 8:53 AM, Zong <zong_y365 at 163.com> wrote:

The dummy example just triggers a warning, I am afraid it shouldn't stop the analyzer, should it?



Yes it should.  The analysis for Checkers is path-sensitive.  Along that path, we hit a bug, flagged by another Checker, that says we should stop analyzing that path.  If this kind of path-sensitivity isn't what you want for your analysis, you should consider writing a different kind of checker that takes an AST and performs its own dataflow analysis that ignores this path-sensitivity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20120207/b92340b2/attachment.html>