steakhal added a comment.
I don't have any technical comments on this patch since I haven't used
`NoteTags` yet, only a couple of readability ones.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/DebugContainerModeling.cpp:97-103
+ auto *PSBR = dyn_cast<PathSensitiveBugReport>(&BR);
+ if (PSBR) {
+ if (PSBR->isInteresting(Field)) {
+ PSBR->markInteresting(Cont);
+ }
+ }
+ return "";
----------------
Probably a flattened version would be more readable.
```lang=c++
auto *PSBR = dyn_cast<PathSensitiveBugReport>(&BR);
if (PSBR && PSBR->isInteresting(Field))
PSBR->markInteresting(Cont);
return "";
```
================
Comment at: clang/test/Analysis/container-modeling.cpp:211
- V2.push_back(n); // expected-note{{Container 'V2' extended to the right by 1
position}} FIXME: This note should not appear since `V2` is not affected in the
"bug"
+ V2.push_back(n); // no note expected
----------------
I'm not sure about the convention about using //dashes//, but I've seen
multiple time comments like this:
`no-warning` etc. Probably a simple `no-note` or something would be more
conventional?
================
Comment at: clang/test/Analysis/container-modeling.cpp:226
- V1.push_back(n); // expected-note{{Container 'V1' extended to the right by 1
position}}
- // expected-note@-1{{Container 'V1' extended to the right
by 1 position}} FIXME: This should appear only once since there is only one
"bug" where `V1` is affected
+ V1.push_back(n); // expected-note{{Container 'V1' extended to the right by 1
position}} -- Only once!
----------------
This line looks quite crowded, can't we use `expected-note@-1` here just like
it was used previously?
The `only once` comment could be in a separate line as well, just to fit nicely.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D75514/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D75514
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
