Szelethus added a comment. In D73720#1874014 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D73720#1874014>, @baloghadamsoftware wrote:
> In case of multiple container-related bugs only mark the container > interesting on the correct bug path. Also a typo fixed. ~~Uh-oh, I'm not sure why this would ever be an issue? Interestingness is a property of a given `BugReport`, not the `BugReporter` class. How can this interfere with one another?~~ Okay I see what the issue is. `DebugContainerModeling` normally doesn't emit a report, only adds notes on interesting containers. Though it still makes me wonder whether this is the right approach. First, I think changes to the `DebugContainerModeling` seems to spawn a different discussion, and separating it to a different patch might make for a satisfying splitting point. The rest of the patch seems to be ready to land in my opinion. Also, this functionality seems to be duplicated in `DebugIteratorModeling` in D74541 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D74541>, is this intended? Second, that issue may be more appropriately solved by introducing a new debug interestingness kind (D65723 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D65723>), and just make the parameters of `clang_analyzer_express` interesting in the debug sense. If we did that, `DebugContainerModeling` could ask whether the symbol is debug-interesting instead of the `SourceRange` hackery. WDYT? CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D73720/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D73720 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
