baloghadamsoftware added a comment. Thank you for your respone! However, I think you (not you, Artem, but you three at Apple) do not really understand that I need to compare A+m to B+n not only because of the iterator range checking, but also in later parts. So your proposal means that I am not allowed to fix the shortcomings of the constraint solver neither in the engine nor in the checker. Maybe part 2 of the iterator checkers patch will work, but then we will restart the whole dispute at a later part.
As I mentioned, I need these comparisons in a lot of places, not only in range checking. This is the core part of my solution. It is primarily needed for invalidation, which is the most solid part. The latest version (not part 10, but a fixed version of the whole chekcer set) finds only 5 false positives for invalidated iterator access, which I could further reduce by adding more detailed simulation of insertion and erasement. So still the options are to fix it in the checker or fix it in the engine (the max/4 or the type extension solution), but leaving it unfixed is not an option. I am open to any solution, but only full solutions and no partial solutions, because they will not help us enough. https://reviews.llvm.org/D35109 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
