Charusso added inline comments.
================
Comment at: test/Analysis/diagnostics/macros.cpp:33
void testDoubleMacro(double d) {
- if (d == DBL_MAX) { // expected-note {{Taking true branch}}
+ if (d == DBL_MAX) { // expected-note {{Assuming 'd' is equal to DBL_MAX}}
+ // expected-note@-1 {{Taking true branch}}
----------------
NoQ wrote:
> This one's good. Static Analyzer doesn't understand floats, so this branch is
> indeed non-trivial. There should indeed be an assuming... piece here.
A little bit misunderstandable, because we do not know anything about doubles.
May the generic message fit better?
================
Comment at: test/Analysis/diagnostics/undef-value-param.m:56
SCDynamicStoreRef ref = anotherCreateRef(&err, x);
- if (err) {
- //expected-note@-1{{Assuming 'err' is not equal to 0}}
- //expected-note@-2{{Taking true branch}}
- CFRelease(ref);
- ref = 0; // expected-note{{nil object reference stored to 'ref'}}
+ if (err) { //expected-note{{Taking true branch}}
+ CFRelease(ref);
----------------
I am not sure why but the range here [1, (2^64)-1]. There is would not be any
number like 0?
================
Comment at: test/Analysis/new-ctor-malloc.cpp:11
void *x = malloc(size); // expected-note {{Memory is allocated}}
- if (!x) // expected-note {{Assuming 'x' is non-null}}
- // expected-note@-1 {{Taking false branch}}
+ if (!x) // expected-note {{Taking false branch}}
return nullptr;
----------------
The range information is [1, (2^64)-1] but as I saw `malloc` could return null.
Who is lying here?
================
Comment at: test/Analysis/uninit-vals.m:167
testObj->origin = makePoint(0.0, 0.0);
- if (testObj->size > 0) { ; } // expected-note{{Taking false branch}}
+ if (testObj->size > 0) { ; } // expected-note{{Assuming the condition is
false}}
+ // expected-note@-1{{Taking false branch}}
----------------
NoQ wrote:
> These are pretty weird. As far as i understand the test, these should be
> there. But i'm suddenly unable to debug why were they not shown before,
> because there's either something wrong with exploded graph dumps or with the
> exploded graph itself; it appears to be missing an edge right after `size >
> 0` is assumed. I'll look more into those.
We gather information with `clang-analyzer-eval` functions so the conditions
would be `Knowing...` pieces but the `BugReporter.cpp` does not know about
these extra assumptations. Where to teach to do not `Assuming...`, but
`Knowing...` these?
================
Comment at: test/Analysis/virtualcall.cpp:172
#endif
X x(i - 1);
#if !PUREONLY
----------------
Because this `X x(i - 1);` we assume these conditions? This one is tricky to be
`Knowing...`.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D53076
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
