martong added a comment. In D87081#2258637 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D87081#2258637>, @Szelethus wrote:
> The patch looks great, in fact, it demonstrates how well thought out your > summary crafting machinery is. > > In D87081#2258579 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D87081#2258579>, @martong wrote: > >> However, in a similar case with the CallAndMessage Checker, we decided to >> list the more specific Checker as a dependency. > > We got the answer to D77061#2057063 > <https://reviews.llvm.org/D77061#2057063>! We should turn it into a weak > dependency though (D80905 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D80905>). > > In D87081#2256636 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D87081#2256636>, @balazske wrote: > >> This checker will make an additional assumption on `fread` and `fwrite` with >> the ReturnValueCondition. The return value is constrained by `StreamChecker` >> too but it splits the error (if returned value is less that arg 3) and >> non-error cases into separate branches. I think this causes no problem >> because it will refine the assumption made here (if this assumption is made >> first) or the assumption here has no effect (if the split happened already). > > Be sure to triple check whether the `ExplodedGraph` looks okay with both > checkers enabled. I'll try to create tests that check the state in both order. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D87081/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D87081 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
