[PATCH] D153132: [clang analysis][NFCI] Preparatory work for D153131.

Wed Sep 27 01:34:00 PDT 2023

courbet added a comment.

In D153132#4651204 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D153132#4651204>, @courbet wrote:

> In D153132#4647557 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D153132#4647557>, @aaronpuchert wrote:
>
>> In D153132#4431627 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D153132#4431627>, @courbet wrote:
>>
>>>> Is this actually required for the subsequent change? I don't see the connection.
>>>
>>> In the followup change, we have to check the returns after the enter and exit CFG block are computed. We can't analyze the returns as they are seen because , because what matters for the returns is the locks that are live at the end of the function, not those that are live at the point where the `return` happens.
>>
>> Is this still the case? Or do we not need this anymore.
>
> So the change we still actually need is for `checkAccess()` to take the fact set as a parameter (because we're checking two different fact sets depending on whether we're processing a return statement or not). I think that design-wise it's better if `checkAccess` is in the `Analyzer` rather than the `BuildLockset`, because `checkAccess()` no longer needs access to any state within `BuildLockset`.

The patch without those base changes for reference: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/11d3339daf6f3543d73292b307057769711bce2e.

>>> From a design perspective I think it might actually make more sens for them to be in the analyzer as `warnIfMutexNotHeld` and friends actually inspects quite a lot of the `Analyzer` state.
>>
>> On that I agree.

Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D153132/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D153132