zaks.anna added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/MemRegion.cpp:653
@@ +652,3 @@
+ // name by calling 'getDescriptiveName' recursively.
+ else {
+ std::string Idx = ER->getDescriptiveName(false);
----------------
xazax.hun wrote:
> Alexander_Droste wrote:
> > I wasn't able to build a test case yet for which the analyzer could not
> > determine the constant value. Is there a way to trick the analyzer so that
> > the else case is used ? Then I could test for something like
> > `'sendReq1[a][7][b]'`.
> You can try use a value returned from a function that has an unknown body.
> E.g.:
>
> int getUnknown();
>
> void f() {
> int a = getUnKnown();
> }
What happens when you try 'sendReq1[a][7][b]'? Does it know the values for "a"
and "b" for some reason? If 'a' would be an input parameter and the analyzer
did not see a call site, it won't know the value of 'a'.
================
Comment at: test/Analysis/MemRegion.cpp:3
@@ +2,3 @@
+
+#include "MPIMock.h"
+
----------------
Alexander_Droste wrote:
> The problem about these tests is that they introduce a cyclic commit
> dependency. MPI-Checker depends on `getDescriptiveName`. `getDescriptiveName`
> depends on MPI-Checker because of the tests.
>
> Further, MPI-Checker depends on this function:
>
> ```
> SourceRange MemRegion::sourceRange() const {
> const VarRegion *const VR = dyn_cast<VarRegion>(this->getBaseRegion());
> const FieldRegion *const FR = dyn_cast<FieldRegion>(this);
> const CXXBaseObjectRegion*const COR = dyn_cast<CXXBaseObjectRegion>(this);
>
> // Check for more specific regions first.
> // FieldRegion
> if (FR) {
> return FR->getDecl()->getSourceRange();
> }
> // CXXBaseObjectRegion
> else if (COR) {
> return COR->getDecl()->getSourceRange();
> }
> // VarRegion
> else if (VR) {
> return VR->getDecl()->getSourceRange();
> }
> // Return invalid source range (can be checked by client).
> else {
> return SourceRange{};
> }
> }
> ```
> Initially, my idea was to submit the `sourceRange` patch after
> `getDescriptiveName`. Maybe it would be most convenient, to include the
> `sourceRange` function into this patch and finally commit all connected
> patches in one go.
> getDescriptiveName depends on MPI-Checker because of the tests.
Would committing the tests separately fix the cyclic commit dependency
problem? (Though, I'd still prefer to review them along with this patch.)
http://reviews.llvm.org/D16044
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
