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