Alexander_Droste marked 36 inline comments as done. ================ Comment at: tools/clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/MPI-Checker/MPICheckerPathSensitive.cpp:79 @@ +78,3 @@ + if (!ReqRegions.empty()) { + Ctx.addTransition(State); + } ---------------- Alexander_Droste wrote: > zaks.anna wrote: > > Don't forget to specify a predecessor here once the code above changes. > Will do. Changed this to the same ErrorNode/State pattern like in `checkMissingWaits`.
================ Comment at: tools/clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/MPI-Checker/MPIFunctionClassifier.h:45 @@ +44,3 @@ + bool isAllgatherType(const clang::IdentifierInfo *const IdentInfo) const; + bool isAlltoallType(const clang::IdentifierInfo *const IdentInfo) const; + bool isReduceType(const clang::IdentifierInfo *const IdentInfo) const; ---------------- Alexander_Droste wrote: > zaks.anna wrote: > > Some of these classifier functions are not used either.. > These model distinct MPI function classes. I agree that it would be better to > remove the unused ones, in order to keep the interface as narrow as possible. I'd like to keep some of the classes/identifiers that are not used in this patch but will be in the clang-tidy patch, as discussed with Alexander Kornienko. ================ Comment at: tools/clang/test/Analysis/MPIChecker.cpp:112 @@ +111,3 @@ + MPI_Ireduce(MPI_IN_PLACE, &buf, 1, MPI_DOUBLE, MPI_SUM, 0, MPI_COMM_WORLD, + &sendReq1); // Request is previously used by nonblocking call here. +} // expected-warning{{Request 'sendReq1' has no matching wait.}} ---------------- Alexander_Droste wrote: > zaks.anna wrote: > > This is not testing the extra information provided by bug reporter visitor; > > you should use "// expected-note {...}" > I didn't know about `expected-note`, thanks! I changed the plain comments to `// expected-note{{..}}` but all tests using an expected note fail by claiming: ```error: 'note' diagnostics expected but not seen: File .../MPIChecker.cpp Line 112: Request is previously used by nonblocking call here.``` Though, running the MPI-Checker on this function, the HTML report contains this exact note at the expected position. The output is produced at the end of `MPIBugReporter::RequestNodeVisitor::VisitNode`. Is there something missing, in order to make this an expected note? http://reviews.llvm.org/D12761 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits