NoQ added a comment.
This looks fantastic, i didn't think of this originally. All hail type safety!
Nits below.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/StdLibraryFunctionsChecker.cpp:182
+
+ FunctionSummaryTy &Specification(ValueRangeSet VRS) {
+ Ranges.push_back(VRS);
----------------
Let's keep calling them "cases" because iirc this was a matter of discussion
(https://reviews.llvm.org/D20811?id=71510#inline-211441).
================
Comment at:
clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/StdLibraryFunctionsChecker.cpp:537-551
+ // The format is as follows:
//{ "function name",
- // { spec:
+ // { variant0:
// { argument types list, ... },
- // return type, purity, { range set list:
+ // return type, purity, { specification list:
// { range list:
// { argument index, within or out of, {{from, to}, ...} },
----------------
I suspect that this comment would need a lot more updates.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/StdLibraryFunctionsChecker.cpp:553
//}
+ using Summary = FunctionSummaryTy;
+ auto ArgumentCondition = [](ArgNoTy ArgNo, ValueRangeKindTy Kind,
----------------
There seems to be a lot of inconsistency in the use of `T`, `Ty`, and
lack-of-suffix.
I'd prefer to have one of them reserved for `QualType`s (eg., `IntTy`).
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D73897/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D73897
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
