NoQ added a comment.
Yup, thanks, this is really nice!
================
Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/IteratorChecker.cpp:243-244
+ Getter get) const;
+ void analyzerContainerBegin(const CallExpr *CE, CheckerContext &C) const;
+ void analyzerContainerEnd(const CallExpr *CE, CheckerContext &C) const;
+ template <typename Getter>
----------------
We usually define such getters for stuff that the programmer cannot obtain
otherwise during normal program execution. These two functions look like
they're probably equivalent to normal `.begin()` and `.end()` calls. I don't
really object but do we really ever need them other than for testing the
trivial implementations of `.begin()` and `.end()`?
================
Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/IteratorChecker.cpp:1659-1660
+ Handler = llvm::StringSwitch<FnCheck>(C.getCalleeName(CE))
+ .Case("clang_analyzer_container_begin",
+ &IteratorChecker::analyzerContainerBegin)
+ .Case("clang_analyzer_container_end",
----------------
`CallDescriptionMap` please? ^.^
================
Comment at: test/Analysis/iterator-inspection.cpp:41-42
+
+ clang_analyzer_dump(&v0); //expected-warning{{&v0}}
+ clang_analyzer_dump(clang_analyzer_iterator_container(b0));
//expected-warning{{&v0}}
+}
----------------
Slightly more robust:
`clang_analyzer_eval(clang_analyzer_iterator_container(b0) == &v0); //
expected-warning{{TRUE}}`?
Repository:
rC Clang
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D67156/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D67156
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
