ygribov added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/VforkChecker.cpp:47
@@ +46,3 @@
+
+ bool isChildProcess(const ProgramStateRef State) const;
+
----------------
a.sidorin wrote:
> I think it's a good idea to make some functions static and/or move them out
> of class definition.
Right. Which one is preferred btw?
================
Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/VforkChecker.cpp:97
@@ +96,3 @@
+
+ ASTContext &Ctx = C.getASTContext();
+ for (const char **id = ids; *id; ++id)
----------------
a.sidorin wrote:
> What about combination of std::transform + std::sort + std::binary_search?
I think I should use SmallSet here as suggested by Devin.
================
Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/VforkChecker.cpp:149
@@ +148,3 @@
+
+ // see if it's an ordinary assignment
+ do {
----------------
a.sidorin wrote:
> You can use early return to escape do{}.
In this particular case - yes. But what's wrong about original do-while-false?
I thought it's a common idiom...
================
Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/VforkChecker.cpp:196
@@ +195,3 @@
+ SVal VforkRetVal = Call.getReturnValue();
+ SymbolRef Sym = VforkRetVal.getAsSymbol();
+ Optional<DefinedOrUnknownSVal> DVal =
----------------
a.sidorin wrote:
> Is check for non-concrete value is really required?
This may be remains of old code, I'll re-check.
Repository:
rL LLVM
http://reviews.llvm.org/D14014
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
