W dniu 26 października 2010 00:39 użytkownik Ted Kremenek < [email protected]> napisał:
> > On Oct 25, 2010, at 3:25 PM, Marcin Świderski wrote: > > > Because: > > 1. removing the check after swaping the order did not crash tests, > > The existing test probably only checked the inverse case. When in doubt, > it is worth verifying the original test that failed (before your changes, by > removing the sanity checking), and seeing if it needs to modified/copied to > the new case. This kind of sanity checking in the CFGBuilder was not added > arbitrarily; it has been built up from esoteric cases people have provided > over the last couple years. > > Crash (not fail) is in misc-ps-region-store.m somewhere in VisitForStmt. I could not locate it, would need to isolate every instance of for loop in file and test it independently, but it's not for today (for ma at least). > > 2. VisitChildren() is implemented this way, > > I assumed that this is the right way to go. If I'm mistaken then > shouldn't we add such check in other places with similar code e.g. > VisitChildren()? > > Good point. It probably needs to be modified as well. If we want to be on the safe side. But I'm really intrigued by this.
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
