xazax.hun added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/BugReporterVisitors.cpp:651-652
+ } else if (StoreSite->getLocation().getAs<BlockEntrance>()) {
+ os << "Reach the max loop limit.";
+ os << " Assigning a conjured symbol";
+ if (R->canPrintPretty()) {
----------------
zaks.anna wrote:
> MTC wrote:
> > NoQ wrote:
> > > This is user-facing text, and users shouldn't know about conjured
> > > symbols, and "max" shouldn't be shortened, and i'm not sure what else.
> > > I'd probably suggest something along the lines of "Contents of <...> are
> > > wiped", but this is still not good enough.
> > >
> > > Also could you add a test that displays this note? I.e. with
> > > `-analyzer-output=text`.
> > Thanks for your review.
> >
> > You are right, whether this information should be displayed to the user is
> > a question worth discussing.
> I am not convinced that we need to print this information to the user. The
> problem here is that it leaks internal implementation details about the
> analyzer. The users should not know about "loop limits" and "invalidation"
> and most of the users would not even know what this means. I can see how this
> is useful to the analyzer developers for debugging the analyzer, but not to
> the end user.
>
While we might not want to expose this to the user this can be really useful to
understand what the analyzer is doing when we debugging a false positive
finding. Maybe it would be worth to introduce a developer mode or verbose mode
for those purposes. What do you think?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D37187
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
