baloghadamsoftware added inline comments. Herald added subscribers: Szelethus, mikhail.ramalho.
================ Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/IteratorChecker.cpp:1584-1588 + auto stateFound = state->BindExpr(CE, LCtx, RetVal); + auto stateNotFound = state->BindExpr(CE, LCtx, SecondParam); + + C.addTransition(stateFound); + C.addTransition(stateNotFound); ---------------- NoQ wrote: > We discussed this in D25660 but i couldn't find what we decided upon. It > seems scary to me that in every situation, we declare that it is possible > that the element is not in the container. It should be allowed, even if not > necessarily efficient, to add the element to the container, and then use > `std::find` to obtain an iterator to it. So i think that this state split, > even if generally approved by your users, may need to stay under an analyzer > checker option. Maybe instead of an option, I should put it into a separate checker that does not emit warnings just simulates these functions, like you did it in rC284960. The file name could be `StdCppLibraryFunctions.cpp`. Common functions and macros should then be moved into a header that both `StdLibraryFunctions.cpp` and `StdCppLibraryFunctions.cpp` includes. https://reviews.llvm.org/D32905 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
