Szelethus added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst:471 + +- Improve the pre- and post condition modeling of several hundred more standard + C functions. ---------------- whisperity wrote: > martong wrote: > > Umm, this is still an alpha command line option, plus we improved only the > > pre-condition checks. > > So, I'd rather say something like: > > ``` > > Improve the pre-condition modeling of several functions defined in the > > POSIX standard. This is in alpha currently. To enable, one must explicitly > > set the ``ModelPOSIX`` argument of the ``apiModeling.StdCLibraryFunctions`` > > checker. > > ``` > Maybe it's worth mentioning the checker here too, akin to the other list > elements? I don't believe in advertising development only options much, especially that we don't expect, nor want non-developers to interact with `apiModeling` stuff often. :/ I ended up removing the entry as such, if you don't mind. ================ Comment at: clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst:471-472 + +- Improve the pre- and post condition modeling of several hundred more standard + C functions. + ---------------- Szelethus wrote: > whisperity wrote: > > martong wrote: > > > Umm, this is still an alpha command line option, plus we improved only > > > the pre-condition checks. > > > So, I'd rather say something like: > > > ``` > > > Improve the pre-condition modeling of several functions defined in the > > > POSIX standard. This is in alpha currently. To enable, one must > > > explicitly set the ``ModelPOSIX`` argument of the > > > ``apiModeling.StdCLibraryFunctions`` checker. > > > ``` > > Maybe it's worth mentioning the checker here too, akin to the other list > > elements? > I don't believe in advertising development only options much, especially that > we don't expect, nor want non-developers to interact with `apiModeling` stuff > often. :/ I ended up removing the entry as such, if you don't mind. We don't want users to tinker with developer-only checkers. ================ Comment at: clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst:498 .. _release-notes-ubsan: ---------------- whisperity wrote: > @Szelethus Speaking of labels in the dependency patch D86532, there is no > label for the CSA changeset... It is only important if you want to use that label -- in fact, this is the only one in the entire file :^) CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D86533/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D86533 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
