martong accepted this revision. martong added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. Herald added a subscriber: rnkovacs.
In D130470#3682131 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D130470#3682131>, @balazske wrote: > A related question: > Is it better to have a more generic function like this: > > void CStringChecker::evalMemmove(CheckerContext &C, const CallExpr *CE, > bool IsRestricted, bool IsMempcpy, bool > IsWide) const { > // void *memmove(void *dst, const void *src, size_t n); > // The return value is the address of the destination buffer. > DestinationArgExpr Dest = {CE->getArg(0), 0}; > SourceArgExpr Src = {CE->getArg(1), 1}; > SizeArgExpr Size = {CE->getArg(2), 2}; > > evalCopyCommon(C, CE, C.getState(), Size, Dest, Src, IsRestricted, > IsMempcpy, > IsWide); > } > > (Instead of `bool` enums can be used.) Or make additional versions of the > eval functions and remove the `IsWide` argument (this is even more code > repetition)? I'd strive for the least code repetition. But I consider this just some nice to have sugar. LGTM ================ Comment at: clang/test/Analysis/wstring.c:372-376 + // else + // analyzer_assert_unknown(n == 0); + + // We can't do the above comparison because n has already been constrained. + // On one path n == 0, on the other n != 0. ---------------- This comment is probably outdated (I know it has been copied from `bstring.c` but still). Perhaps we should have the `else` branch now not just here but also in `bstring.c`. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D130470/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D130470 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
