Szelethus added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/BugReporterVisitors.cpp:2263-2264
Tracker::Tracker(PathSensitiveBugReport &Report) : Report(Report) {
addHighPriorityHandler<DefaultExpressionHandler>();
+ addLowPriorityHandler<PRValueHandler>();
// TODO: split trackExpressionValue and FindLastStoreBRVisitor into handlers
----------------
vsavchenko wrote:
> Szelethus wrote:
> > I checked this commit out, and failed to see how these low/high priority
> > handlers work out in practice. I tried to
> > * Make the default handler low prio as well
> > * Make the PRValue high prio
> > * All other combinations of the those values
> > * Change the order of adding these handlers
> >
> > No tests failed. Is there any one patch so far that demonstrates why we
> > need this? A unit test?
> add with high priority == add to the beginning of the queue
> add with low priority == add to the end of the queue
>
> This means that it doesn't matter with what priority we add the very first
> one.
> I guess with these two it doesn't matter which order they have one against
> another, that's why tests don't fail. This code here keeps the same order it
> was originally in `trackExpressionValue` to maintain parity.
>
> In the future commits, `InterestingLValueHandler` HAVE TO BE before before
> `DefaultExpressionHandler` and there are tests that validate it. Actually
> this is the only place that I know that really cares about the order and
> that's why I needed to add priorities and the way for one handler to cancel
> all further handlers.
>
> Does this answer your question?
Perfectly, thank you! :)
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D103630/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D103630
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
