[PATCH] D74615: [Analyzer] Add visitor to track iterator invalidation

NoQ added a comment. Herald added a subscriber: ASDenysPetrov. > However, if //something// happens to the value in a transition which is done > by another checker (or the core engine) then ... then //that// checker (or the engine) adds a tag in order to explain itself, because from its point

[PATCH] D74615: [Analyzer] Add visitor to track iterator invalidation

baloghadamsoftware added a comment. In D74615#1923710 , @NoQ wrote: > In D74615#1917289 , @Szelethus wrote: > > > You may have explained it in the summary, and I didn't get it, but why > > isn't putting a

[PATCH] D74615: [Analyzer] Add visitor to track iterator invalidation

NoQ added a comment. In D74615#1917289 , @Szelethus wrote: > You may have explained it in the summary, and I didn't get it, but why isn't > putting a `NoteTag` in `invalidateAllIteratorPositions` sufficient? We could > state something like `All

[PATCH] D74615: [Analyzer] Add visitor to track iterator invalidation

Szelethus added a comment. You may have explained it in the summary, and I didn't get it, but why isn't putting a `NoteTag` in `invalidateAllIteratorPositions` sufficient? We could state something like `All iterators associated with 'V' are invalidated`. I'm not against a visitor, just playing

[PATCH] D74615: [Analyzer] Add visitor to track iterator invalidation

baloghadamsoftware created this revision. baloghadamsoftware added reviewers: NoQ, Szelethus. baloghadamsoftware added a project: clang. Herald added subscribers: steakhal, Charusso, donat.nagy, mikhail.ramalho, a.sidorin, rnkovacs, szepet, xazax.hun. To understand the bug report issued by the