NoQ added inline comments.
Comment at:
cfe/trunk/include/clang/StaticAnalyzer/Core/PathSensitive/CallEvent.h:73
+ : II(nullptr), IsLookupDone(false), FuncName(FuncName),
+RequiredArgs(RequiredArgs) {}
xazax.hun wrote:
> NoQ wrote:
> > Maybe `asser
xazax.hun added inline comments.
Comment at:
cfe/trunk/include/clang/StaticAnalyzer/Core/PathSensitive/CallEvent.h:73
+ : II(nullptr), IsLookupDone(false), FuncName(FuncName),
+RequiredArgs(RequiredArgs) {}
NoQ wrote:
> Maybe `assert(FuncName.size
NoQ added inline comments.
Comment at:
cfe/trunk/include/clang/StaticAnalyzer/Core/PathSensitive/CallEvent.h:73
+ : II(nullptr), IsLookupDone(false), FuncName(FuncName),
+RequiredArgs(RequiredArgs) {}
Maybe `assert(FuncName.size() > 0)` here?
Re
xazax.hun added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D29884#677387, @NoQ wrote:
> Yep, seems that somebody has missed these issues :)
>
> I guess there's no way to test the operator case, because nobody made a
> CallDescription with an empty name for us (maybe we should even assert that).
Th
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
Closed by commit rL295186: [analyzer] Proper caching in CallDescription
objects. (authored by xazax).
Changed prior to commit:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D29884?vs=88166&id=88537#toc
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.
NoQ accepted this revision.
NoQ added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Yep, seems that somebody has missed these issues :)
I guess there's no way to test the operator case, because nobody made a
CallDescription with an empty name for us (maybe we should even assert tha
xazax.hun created this revision.
During the review of https://reviews.llvm.org/D29567 it turned out the caching
in CallDescription is not implemented properly. In case an identifier does not
exist in a translation unit, repeated identifier lookups will be done which
might have bad impact on the
