[cfe-dev] Missing ReturnStmt?

[Ted Kremenek]

On Feb 6, 2012, at 8:53 AM, Zong <zong_y365 at 163.com> wrote:

> The dummy example just triggers a warning, I am afraid it shouldn't stop the analyzer, should it?

Yes it should.  The analysis for Checkers is path-sensitive.  Along that path, we hit a bug, flagged by another Checker, that says we should stop analyzing that path.  If this kind of path-sensitivity isn't what you want for your analysis, you should consider writing a different kind of checker that takes an AST and performs its own dataflow analysis that ignores this path-sensitivity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20120206/5f25fe8b/attachment.html>