[cfe-dev] : Clang Static Code Analyzer does not report 'Switch' Statement as a branch condition.

[Jordan Rose]

That sounds right. Let me know if you have any more questions!

Jordan

On Dec 12, 2013, at 7:17 , Zach Davis <zdavkeos at gmail.com> wrote:

> Let me see if I understand the plan:
> 
> 1. Add a runCheckersForPreStmt() call to ExprEngine::processBranch
> right after the call to runCheckersForBranchStmt(), effectively
> chaining the two together.  The loop can the evaluate the nodes
> returned from both calls?
> 
> 2. Add a runCheckersForPreStmt() call to the top of
> ExprEngine::processSwitch.  The loop will then need to evaluate the
> returned nodes as well as explore and evaluate the switch body as it
> currently does?
> 
> 3. Add a runCheckersForPreStmt() call to
> ExprEngine::processIndirectGoto and add a loop to evaluate any
> returned nodes.
> 
> Zach
> 
> > Hi, Zach. That's great to hear. The code lives in ExprEngine.cpp, and
> > you can see in functions like ExprEngine::VisitUnaryOperator
> > (ExprEngineC.cpp) that it basically just consists of a call to the
> > CheckerManager to run the pre-statement checks, then a loop over the
> > results to actually perform the evaluation. In
> > ExprEngine::processBranch the loop is already in place, so you just
> > need to add the second callback; ExprEngine::processSwitch also has a
> > loop but may need a bit more
> > restructuring. ExprEngine::processIndirectGoto is the last of these
> > and probably needs a completely new loop added.
> 
> 
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Jordan Rose <jordan_rose at apple.com> wrote:
> 
> On Dec 6, 2013, at 10:07 , Zach Davis <zdavkeos at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > > Right; what I meant was that we'd prefer to make this work rather than adding switch statements to checkBranchCondition, but right now neither one works. Sorry for the inconvenience.
> > >
> > > Jordan
> >
> > I had this same problem and ended up using an ast-matcher in a clang tool instead to get the information I wanted.
> >
> > I would be interested in helping add this feature though.
> >
> >
> > I found the bug report (18175), but could use some pointers to get started on a patch.
> 
> Hi, Zach. That's great to hear. The code lives in ExprEngine.cpp, and you can see in functions like ExprEngine::VisitUnaryOperator (ExprEngineC.cpp) that it basically just consists of a call to the CheckerManager to run the pre-statement checks, then a loop over the results to actually perform the evaluation. In ExprEngine::processBranch the loop is already in place, so you just need to add the second callback; ExprEngine::processSwitch also has a loop but may need a bit more restructuring. ExprEngine::processIndirectGoto is the last of these and probably needs a completely new loop added.
> 
> Please feel free to ask more specific questions, and when you're ready send the first iteration of your patch to cfe-commits.
> 
> Thanks for picking this up!
> Jordan
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20131212/6665652c/attachment.html>