baloghadamsoftware marked 2 inline comments as done. baloghadamsoftware added inline comments.
================ Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/IteratorChecker.cpp:1929-1930 + + auto &SymMgr = State->getSymbolManager(); + auto Sym = SymMgr.conjureSymbol(E, LCtx, T, BlockCount, "end"); + State = assumeNoOverflow(State, Sym, 4); ---------------- NoQ wrote: > This is a bit more `auto` than allowed by [[ > https://llvm.org/docs/CodingStandards.html#use-auto-type-deduction-to-make-code-more-readable > | our coding standards ]] (it pretty much disallows `auto` unless it's some > sort of `dyn_cast` (`getAs`) or an iterator. I can add the type, of course. However, until now I understood and it is also in the coding standard that "other places where the type is already obvious from the context". For me it is obvious that `conjureSymbol()` returns a `SymbolRef`. Even more obvious is the `getSymbolManager()` returns a `SymbolManager`. ================ Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/IteratorChecker.cpp:2247 +ProgramStateRef ensureNonNegativeDiff(ProgramStateRef State, SymbolRef Sym1, + SymbolRef Sym2) { ---------------- NoQ wrote: > This looks like a new feature. Is it testable? I am not sure I can test it alone. Maybe I should leave it for now and add it in another patch together with modelling of `empty()` or `size()`. Then I should also rename this patch which remains pure refactoring. Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D61136/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D61136 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
