NoQ added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/Analysis/diagnostics/find_last_store.c:9
void no_find_last_store() {
- c *e = d(); // expected-note{{Calling 'd'}}
- // expected-note@-1{{Returning from 'd'}}
- // expected-note@-2{{'e' initialized here}}
+ c *e = d(); // expected-note{{'e' initialized here}}
----------------
This remaining note is also unnecessary. You can safely stop tracking the value
at `e || ...`. In particular, `ReturnVisitor` is not at fault.
That said, when we renamed `trackNullOrUndefValue` to `trackExpressionValue`,
we kinda assumed that it's not really important whether the value is null/undef
or not - the function simply tracks the value. This change would break this
invariant, causing null values to be handled in a special manner. I recommend
adding another flag argument (similar to `EnableNullFPSuppression`) that would
allow the caller to tell whether it's interested in the null or in the "whole"
value (defaulting to the latter).
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D62978/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D62978
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
