NoQ accepted this revision.
NoQ added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Just add tests, i guess!
Also i'll have a look at whether the checker is in a good shape to be enabled
by default. I suspect that mismatched iterators might be very safe to enable.
With all these solver and rearrangement issues, if they only cause false
negatives, it's not blocking enabling the checker by default. The same applies
to the debate around `find`.
One thing that's most likely necessary to do before enabling the checker by
default is to add a bug report visitor, so that it added notes when iterators
appear for the first time or change their state. Without such notes it's
usually very hard to understand warnings. Especially because we're dropping the
path within inlined functions that have no interesting events, but when the
iterator originates from or gets updated within such function, this information
becomes crucial. The visitor might have to hop from one object to another
similarly to `trackNullOrUndefValue()` (i.e., by adding more instances of
itself that track objects that are being copied or moved into the object of
interest at the program point that is currently being visited).
================
Comment at: test/Analysis/mismatched-iterator.cpp:157
+void bad_empty(std::vector<int> &v1, std::vector<int> &v2) {
+ is_cend(v1, v2.cbegin()); // expected-warning@149{{Iterators of different
containers used where the same container is expected}}
+}
----------------
Maybe use `@-8` instead, so that we only had to update it when *this* test
changes?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D32906
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
