dcoughlin added a comment.
These seems reasonable, although it does also seem like there could be quite a
few unintended consequences that we haven't discovered yet.
I'm also a bit worried about the change in the analyzer's behavior on copy().
Do you have a sense of how much of an effect this will have and how easy
potential false positives from this will be to suppress?
================
Comment at: test/Analysis/bstring.cpp:47
+ // The TRUE warning shows up on the path on which the vector is empty.
clang_analyzer_eval(i == 66); // expected-warning {{UNKNOWN}}
----------------
This seems like it will be a big analysis policy change from the user's
perspective and is likely to generate a bunch of new reports.
Can the user add an assertion that v.size() > 0 to tell the analyzer that the
path on which the vector is empty is not feasible?
What are the diagnostic notes look like? Can the user tell that the the
analyzer is assuming that begin() == end() on that path?
Repository:
rC Clang
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D55875/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D55875
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
