RedDocMD added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/BasicValueFactory.cpp:184
+ llvm::SmallPtrSet<QualType, 16> BaseSpecSeen;
+ for (const auto &BaseSpec : BaseSpecList) {
+ auto BaseType = BaseSpec->getType();
----------------
vsavchenko wrote:
> vsavchenko wrote:
> > LLVM Coding Style calls for very limited use of `auto`, so here and the
> > next line would be better with actual types.
> Let's also reiterate on using functional-style predicates and reimplement it
> in terms of `llvm::all_of` or `llvm::none_of`.
I couldn't do this since calling llvm::all_of (or std::all_of) on an
ImmutableList causes a compile error saying that the function
std::__iterator_category cannot be found for its iterator.
================
Comment at: clang/test/Analysis/pointer-to-member.cpp:314-333
+// namespace testReinterpretCasting {
+// struct Base {
+// int field;
+// };
+//
+// struct Derived : public Base {};
+//
----------------
vsavchenko wrote:
> RedDocMD wrote:
> > vsavchenko wrote:
> > > Uncomment it, and expect the actual current result. This is where `TODO`
> > > will come in handy.
> > > Uncomment it, and expect the actual current result. This is where `TODO`
> > > will come in handy.
> > Will do it.
> > Just one clarification: the static analyzer tests only serve to check
> > whether the Static Analyzer crashes or hits an assertion error, or is it
> > something more?
> >
> Mostly they check for reported results, you can see special comments like `//
> expect-warning{...}` in almost every test.
So right now we have a failing test for this, I guess its my job in the next
commit to make it pass. :)
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D95877/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D95877
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
