Alexander_Droste added a comment.
Hi Anna,
> I am fine with committing it and iterating with smaller updates in tree if it
> is more convenient for you.
This sounds good! The last thing I'll change before are the improvements you
pointed out.
> One task that I would like to very strongly encourage is running this on a
> lot of code.
Good idea. I'll do that.
Thanks a lot for all the time and effort you invested into the review!
================
Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/MPI-Checker/MPIChecker.cpp:87
@@ +86,3 @@
+ }
+ // A wait has no matching nonblocking call.
+ BReporter->reportUnmatchedWait(PreCallEvent, ReqRegion, ErrorNode);
----------------
zaks.anna wrote:
> This is done, right?
Yep.
================
Comment at: test/Analysis/MPIChecker.cpp:99
@@ +98,3 @@
+ MPI_Wait(&req, MPI_STATUS_IGNORE);
+}
+
----------------
zaks.anna wrote:
> This are explaining the path on which the problem occurs; the users will see
> them as well. There should not be a lot of those, you do not have a lot of
> conditions. Would it be reasonable to change the tests to incorporate those.
> Other alternative is to have another tests file that tests the notes in that
> mode.
>
> What do you think?
I'm fine with adding the notes to this test file.
================
Comment at: test/Analysis/MPIChecker.cpp:114
@@ +113,3 @@
+
+void doubleNonblocking4() {
+ int rank = 0;
----------------
zaks.anna wrote:
> > I would then simply create a new pair of .cpp and .h files in the test
> > folder
> > where I define those functions so that the MPI-Checker tests can use them.
>
> You do not have to do that. You could just declare the functions and not
> define them. It will be equivalent to having the definitions in the other TUs.
>
>
Like you suggested, I'll simply declare the functions without definition.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D12761
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
