ymandel added inline comments.
================
Comment at:
clang/lib/Analysis/FlowSensitive/Models/UncheckedOptionalAccessModel.cpp:174
+/// property of the optional value `OptionalVal`.
+void setHasValue(StructValue &OptionalVal, BoolValue &HasValueVal) {
+ OptionalVal.setProperty("has_value", HasValueVal);
----------------
sgatev wrote:
> ymandel wrote:
> > I believe you can relax this to `Value` because `setProperty` is no longer
> > specific to `StructValue`.
> I did that intentionally because I still think it makes sense to assert that
> an optional is modeled as a `StructValue`. I haven't thought about where and
> how it'd be best to assert that though so I'll happily remove the casts for
> now.
Sounds good. I had the same thought. But, it occurs to me that at this point,
are we using the `StructValue` at all? If not, then the only reason we expect
it to be a `StructValue` is because we know the optional type is a record type.
But, that's not an assumption of our model. So, maybe we should be agnostic to
the underlying representation?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D125931/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D125931
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
