Szelethus added a comment.
Some tests would be appreciated, It really helps me understand whats going on.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/Checkers.td:620-624
+ "AggressiveEraseModeling",
+ "Enables exploration of the past-the-end branch for the "
+ "return value of the erase() method of containers.",
+ "false",
+ Released>
----------------
Hmm. The description isn't really user-friendly, imo, but the option doesn't
sound too user-facing either. I don't think this is an option to be tinkered
with. I think we should make this hidden.
Also, even for developers, I find this a bitconfusing at first. Do we not
enable that by default? Why not? What do we have to gain/lose?
================
Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/ContainerModeling.cpp:692-699
+ std::tie(StateEnd, StateNotEnd) = State->assume(*RetEnd);
+ if (StateEnd) {
+ C.addTransition(StateEnd);
+ }
+ if (StateNotEnd) {
+ C.addTransition(StateNotEnd);
+ }
----------------
Right, so the const is a state split. That doesn't sound like something regular
users should fine-tune.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D77150/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D77150
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
