whisperity added a comment.
@george.karpenkov @NoQ `bugprone.` as a category sounds nice. It also nicely
corresponds to the Clang-Tidy `bugprone-` category. It would not be nice to
further fragment the "top levels" of checker categories.
I can say with confidence that CodeChecker does not break if the same category
name is used by two different analyzers. Does the same stand for XCode /
Scan-Build? In this case, introducing the `bugprone` category with the same
principle that is behind Tidy's one is a good step.
================
Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/CtorUninitializedMemberChecker.cpp:162
+/// We can't know the type of the region that a void pointer points to, so FD
+/// can't be analyzed if this function return true for it.
+bool isVoidPointer(const FieldDecl *FD);
----------------
george.karpenkov wrote:
> "returns"
Actually, this explanation is superfluous. I believe
Returns if FD can be (transitively) dereferenced to a void* (void**, ...).
The type of the region behind a void pointer isn't known, and thus FD can not
be analyzed.
should suffice?
================
Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/CtorUninitializedMemberChecker.cpp:212
+
+ std::string WarningMsg = std::to_string(UninitFields.size()) +
+ " uninitialized field" +
----------------
george.karpenkov wrote:
> nitpicking: llvm::Twine is normally used for such constructs
I have also suggested the usage of Twine for this line (it's just the diff that
got out of sync with the line numbers!), but I don't recall what @Szelethus'
concern was about them. In case we have move semantics enabled, this line will
compile into using the moving concatenator.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D45532
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
