Szelethus added a comment. In D66267#1632164 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D66267#1632164>, @NoQ wrote:
> In D66267#1630728 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D66267#1630728>, @Szelethus wrote: > > > Shouldn't we just delete this entire visitor altogether and merge it into > > ConditionBRVisitor (like, eventually, not right now)? It seems to be a > > relic of the past. > > > I'm actually curious about one particular mess that we have here. Namely, > there's a visitor that says "assuming..." and there's checker notes when > checkers themselves assume something; how can we be sure they don't duplicate > each other? BugReporter.cpp does some deduplication of notes originating from TrackConstraintBRVisitor and ConditionBRVisitor, but I'm not sure how many other visitors/checkers do we have doing the same. ================ Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/BugReporterVisitors.cpp:1898-1900 + // If the contents are symbolic and null, find out when they became null. + if (V.getAsLocSymbol(/*IncludeBaseRegions=*/true)) + if (LVState->isNull(V).isConstrainedTrue()) ---------------- When `trackNulOrUndeflValue` to `trackExpressionValue`, I think it was an oversight that the comments in it weren't changed accordingly. This makes a lot more sense now, cheers! Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D66267/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D66267 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
