[PATCH] D60281: [analyzer] Add docs for cplusplus.InnerPointer

[Artem Dergachev via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

NoQ added inline comments.


================
Comment at: docs/analyzer/checkers.rst:225-226
+``std::string``s, by recognizing member functions that may re/deallocate the buffer
+before use. In the future, it would be great to add support for other STL and
+non-STL containers, and most notably, ``std::string_view``s.
+
----------------
Szelethus wrote:
> dkrupp wrote:
> > Szelethus wrote:
> > > Hmm. While this page is a documentation, I would still expect regular users to browse through it -- are we sure that we want to add future plans for a non-alpha checker? I'm not against it, just a question.
> > I think it is a good idea. A non-alpha checker can also be further developed, by anyone else. It is good that we don't forget about further features. This note also highlights the limitations of the checker.
> How about this: "Future plans include to add support for blahblah". The current statement should rather be a TODO in the code.
I suggest presenting it as "The checker is currently limited to `std::string`s and doesn't recognize some of the more sophisticated approaches to passing unowned pointers around, such as `std::string_view`s". It sounds a bit more negative than it deserves to sound, but that's the most documentation-like text i managed to come up with so far >.< Maybe put it under a "Known Limitations:" marker and/or expand the main part of the documentation in order to keep the reader's impression balanced, eg. "Many container methods in the C++ standard library are known to invalidate "references" (including actual references, iterators and raw pointers) to elements of the container. Using such references after they are invalidated causes undefined behavior, which is a common source of memory errors in C++ that this checker is capable of finding."

> While this page is a documentation, I would still expect regular users to browse through it

I'd love our users to browse it! Maybe we should consider adding a documentation link to our HTML report headers as the documentation gets good enough.


================
Comment at: docs/analyzer/checkers.rst:232
+
+ void test_deref_after_equals() {
+   std::string s = "llvm";
----------------
The `test_` part doesn't add much here, maybe drop it?


Repository:
  rC Clang

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D60281/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D60281