[llvm-dev] Before we go cleaning up LLVM+Clang of all Static Analyzer Warnings...

[David Blaikie via llvm-dev]

Hi Apelete,

Thanks for trying to help cleanup the LLVM codebase of Clang Static
Analyzer warnings.

But it seems a lot of the fixes that are being proposed are somewhat
mechanical and may be doing the wrong thing in a few ways.

* Initializing variables that are only used when initialized through some
existing codepath - this can make tools like Memory Sanitizer less useful,
because now the value is initialized even in some path where that value is
never intended to be used

* Adding assertions for pointers that are known to be non-null - in some
cases this is helpful, when the algorithm that ensures the non-null-ness is
sufficiently opaque. But for function parameters - we have /lots/ of
non-null function parameters. I think it'd be impractical to assert on all
of them.

But if we want to do something like this we should probably have some
community discussion about how how to go about any of these things across
the codebase. Maybe using nonnull attributes would be a better approach to
the parameter issue, for example - but it'll still be a lot of code churn
that there should probably be general consensus on rather than approaching
it piecemeal with reviewers in different parts of the codebase.

Thanks,
- Dave
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160505/e3b717dd/attachment.html>