On Feb 16, 2009, at 8:51 AM, Ben Laurie wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 4:48 PM, Ben Laurie <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 4:26 PM, Ted Kremenek <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Feb 16, 2009, at 1:19 AM, Ben Laurie <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 4:54 AM, Ted Kremenek
<[email protected]> wrote:
Author: kremenek
Date: Sun Feb 15 22:54:20 2009
New Revision: 64627
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=64627&view=rev
Log:
Do not register 'RangeConstraintManager' as the default
ConstraintManager.
I should note that this didn't work, by the way.
Hi Ben,
I'm more than happy to fix my mistakes, but your comment doesn't
contain any
actionable information. Can you clarify what you mean by "this
didn't
work"?. That could mean a variety of issues. Are you seeing that
RangeConstraintManager is not being used at all now (despite
whatever
options you pass to the command line)? If that is the case, I
suspect the
analagous line in BasicConstraintManager.c needs to be removed as
well (I
can't tell right now if there is one since I'm not near an editor).
What i meant was that adding
RegisterConstraintManager X(CreateRangeConstraintManager);
did not cause the RangeConstraintManager to be used when there was no
command-line option to enable it. I did not investigate further since
this is clearly the wrong way to do it.
BTW, it seemed to me that this mechanism would be more useful if it
registered the constraint manager and some string identifying it, and
then used a command-line option to select one of the registered
managers...
I agree, although the mechanism has to be general enough that the
individual ConstraintManagers don't assume that they are being used
from a command-line driver. The logic you mention would mostly go
into AnalysisConsumer (which is driver specific). Feel free to take a
stab at it if you are interested._______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
