Szelethus marked 2 inline comments as done.
Szelethus added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Analysis/CFG.cpp:5908-5909
+void CFG::dump(bool ShowColors) const { dump(LangOptions{}, ShowColors); }
+
/// print - A simple pretty printer of a CFG that outputs to an ostream.
----------------
steakhal wrote:
> How are these `dump()` changes related?
I'll commit them in a separate patch.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/BugReporterVisitors.cpp:1968
+static const Expr *peelOffOuterExpr(const Expr *Ex, const ExplodedNode *N) {
+
Ex = Ex->IgnoreParenCasts();
----------------
steakhal wrote:
> extra blank line
That is intentional -- I think it makes the code more readable. Separates the
function signature from the implementation.
================
Comment at: clang/test/Analysis/track-control-dependency-conditions.cpp:1036
+ x = nullptr; // expected-note {{Null pointer value stored to 'x'}}
+ if (!alwaysFalse()) // expected-note {{Taking true branch}}
+ *x = 5; // expected-warning {{Dereference of null pointer
(loaded from variable 'x') [core.NullDereference]}}
----------------
steakhal wrote:
> What if this expression is enclosed by a logical operator such as `&&`?
For each of those operators, a different CFGBlock would be created:
```
if (A && B)
C;
D;
C
/ \
B------->
/ \
A---------> D
```
This means that operands of || and && is retrievable through
`CFGBlock::getLastCondition()`, so I shouldn't need to tear the AST apart to
that extent. Though, I admit, you likely don't need to go very far to fool my
implementation for realizing whether the condition boils down to a function
call.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D116597/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D116597
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
