dblaikie added a subscriber: dblaikie.
================
Comment at: lib/AST/ASTDiagnostic.cpp:1686
@@ -1685,3 +1685,3 @@
- if (Same) {
+ if (Same && FromTD) {
OS << "template " << FromTD->getNameAsString();
----------------
Should this be a condition, or just an assertion?
================
Comment at: lib/AST/ExprConstant.cpp:1992
@@ -1991,2 +1991,3 @@
int64_t Adjustment) {
+ assert(E && "expression to be evaluated must be not NULL");
CharUnits SizeOfPointee;
----------------
Does the static analyzer assume any pointer parameter may be null? (I didn't
think it did that - I thought it only assumed it could be null if there was a
null test somewhere in the function?) That seems a bit too pessimistic in most
codebases, especially LLVM - we pass a lot of non-null pointers around.
================
Comment at: lib/AST/NestedNameSpecifier.cpp:460
@@ +459,3 @@
+
+ assert(Buffer && "Buffer cannot be NULL");
+
----------------
Again, is this assuming that the Buffer parameter may be null? That seems
unlikely to be useful in the LLVM codebase where we have lots of guaranteed
non-null pointers floating around (I'm surprised this wouldn't cause tons of
analyzer warnings, so presumably it's something more subtle?)
http://reviews.llvm.org/D19084
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
