[PATCH] D122285: [analyzer] Add path note tags to standard library function summaries.

[Artem Dergachev via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

NoQ planned changes to this revision.
NoQ added a comment.

Ok there's actually a huge bug in this patch, namely we can't say "Assuming..." if there's no state split (i.e., when we know from the start which branch is taken so we don't have to assume). I'll fix.

In D122285#3401754 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D122285#3401754>, @steakhal wrote:

>> The notes are prunable, i.e. they won't bring-in entire stack frames worth of notes just because they're there, but they will be always visible regardless of whether the value is of interest to the bug report. I think this is debatable, the arguably better solution is to make them non-prunable but conditional to the value being tracked back to the call, which would probably need a better tracking infrastructure.
>
> I was thinking of passing a lambda and doing the rest there. We could have lambda factories to make it less cumbersome to define - and also reuse code.

Yes sure, that's exactly how note tags are designed to work, but that lambda still needs to know whether the value is tracked. I guess I'll take a look at how well interestingness performs in these examples, maybe it's worth having from the start.


Repository:
  rC Clang

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D122285/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D122285