aprantl marked 8 inline comments as done. aprantl added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/lib/Analysis/BodyFarm.cpp:843 + return Val.getValue(); + Val = nullptr; + ---------------- rjmccall wrote: > Why did this logic need to change? I don't have a satisfying answer for this. Without this extra code, the assertion in https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/b081220cfd46965fa25dbf826cd3f42f4f9e54cd/clang/test/Analysis/properties.m#L1035 (and only that one) turns from `UNKNOWN` to `TRUE`. There is a similar workaround with a similar comment in https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/b081220cfd46965fa25dbf826cd3f42f4f9e54cd/clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/CallEvent.cpp#L1291 that looks like it is related. ================ Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/CodeGenModule.cpp:5063 const_cast<ObjCImplementationDecl *>(D), PID); } } ---------------- rjmccall wrote: > Is this special treatment still necessary? Won't we encounter the getter and > setter on the normal pass over the method definitions in the > `@implementation`? We don't know which ObjMethodDecls without bodies are property accessor implementations since there is no pointer from the ObjCMethodDecl back to the ObjCPropertyImplDecl. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D68108/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D68108 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
