[PATCH] D153017: [StaticAnalyzer] Fix false negative when using a nullable parameter directly without binding to a variable

[Balázs Benics via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

steakhal added a comment.

I believe, `zaks.anna` and `vsavchenko` are no longer involved in the project.
I think it makes sense to have the code owners NoQ and xazax.hun as reviewers, and I also tend to review quite a lot nowadays.
And we usually use the `[analyzer]` tag instead of `[StaticAnalyzer]` for the patches.
It's useful to use the right tags to trigger the right herald scripts to get the right circle notified.



================
Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/NullabilityChecker.cpp:569-573
+void NullabilityChecker::checkBeginFunction(CheckerContext &C) const {
+  const LocationContext *LCtx = C.getLocationContext();
+  auto AbstractCall = AnyCall::forDecl(LCtx->getDecl());
+  if (!AbstractCall)
+    return;
----------------
steakhal wrote:
> Uh, the diffing here looks terrible.
> What you probably want: Fold the `State`s, and if you are done, transition - but only if we have any parameters.
> We need to have a single `addTransition()` call if we want a single execution path modeled in the graph. We probably don't want one path on which the first parameter's annotation is known; and a separate one where only the second, etc.
Shouldn't we only do this for the analysis entrypoints only? (aka. top-level functions)
I assume this checker already did some modeling of the attributes, hence we have the warnings in the tests.


================
Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/NullabilityChecker.cpp:569-594
+void NullabilityChecker::checkBeginFunction(CheckerContext &C) const {
+  const LocationContext *LCtx = C.getLocationContext();
+  auto AbstractCall = AnyCall::forDecl(LCtx->getDecl());
+  if (!AbstractCall)
+    return;
+
+  ProgramStateRef State = C.getState();
----------------
Uh, the diffing here looks terrible.
What you probably want: Fold the `State`s, and if you are done, transition - but only if we have any parameters.
We need to have a single `addTransition()` call if we want a single execution path modeled in the graph. We probably don't want one path on which the first parameter's annotation is known; and a separate one where only the second, etc.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D153017/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D153017