NoQ added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/docs/analyzer/checkers.rst:2361 + (void)ret; + clang_analyzer_eval(EOF <= x && x <= 255); // this reports TRUE + } ---------------- I recommend against using `clang_analyzer_eval` in user docs. Users aren't expected to know what it is. ================ Comment at: clang/docs/analyzer/checkers.rst:2366 +suppressed. However, the assumption about the argument is still modeled (otherwise we +would be further analyzing an illformed program). + ---------------- Nitpick: the program doesn't become ill-formed just because the user has turned off the checker. Maybe it's better to say that exploring an execution path that already contains undefined behavior is not valuable, or something along those lines(?) Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D117568/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D117568 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
