[PATCH] D101526: [analyzer][StdLibraryFunctionsChecker] Add NoteTags for applied arg constraints

[Kristóf Umann via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

Szelethus added inline comments.
Herald added a subscriber: manas.


================
Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/StdLibraryFunctionsChecker.cpp:156-157
     // the bug is reported.
-    virtual std::string describe(ProgramStateRef State,
+    virtual std::string describe(DescritptionKind DK, ProgramStateRef State,
                                  const Summary &Summary) const {
       // There are some descendant classes that are not used as argument
----------------
How about we turn this into a print-like function and instead of returning with a string, we take an `llvm::raw_ostream` object as argument? `SmallString` + `raw_svector_stream` is how we construct most of our checker message strings.


================
Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/StdLibraryFunctionsChecker.cpp:857
+            if (BR.isInteresting(ArgSVal))
+              OS << Msg;
+          }));
----------------
steakhal wrote:
> Ah, there is a slight issue.
> You should mark some stuff interesting here, to make this interestingness propagate back transitively.
> 
> Let's say `ArgSVal` is `x + y` which is considered to be out of range `[42,52]`. We should mark both `x` and `y` interesting because they themselves could have been constrained by the StdLibChecker previously. So, they must be interesting as well.
> 
> On the same token, IMO `PathSensitiveBugReport::markInteresting(symbol)` should be //transitive//. So that all `SymbolData` in that symbolic expression tree are considered interesting. What do you think @NoQ?
> If we were doing this, @martong  - you could simply acquire the assumption you constructed for the given `ValueConstraint`, and mark that interesting. Then all `SymbolData`s on both sides of the logic operator would become implicitly interesting.
>On the same token, IMO PathSensitiveBugReport::markInteresting(symbol) should be transitive. So that all SymbolData in that symbolic expression tree are considered interesting. What do you think @NoQ?

Thats how I'd expect this to work. This shouldn't be a burden on the checker developer (certainly not this kind of a checker), but rather be handled by `PathSensitiveBugReport`.

So I think this is fine as it is.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D101526/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D101526