ZaMaZaN4iK added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D33672#1279305, @NoQ wrote:
> Thanks! I like where this is going. Let's land the patch and continue > developing it incrementally in trunk. > > The next steps for this checker are, in my opinion: > > - Do the visitor thingy that i requested in inline-311373 > <https://reviews.llvm.org/D33672#inline-311373>. I think it's a necessary > thing to do, but don't jump into implementing it right away: i already have > some code for this that i want to share. > - Play nicely with typedefs. For now i believe the checker ignores them > because you can't cast `TypedefType` to `EnumType`. Once this is done, it > will be worth it to include the name of the enum in the warning message. > - Optimize the code using `assumeInclusiveRange`. Because `assume` is an > expensive operation, i'd like to avoid doing it O(n) times for contiguous > enums in which just 2 `assume`s are enough (or, even better, as single > `assumeInclusiveRange`). > - See how this checker performs on real code, fix crashes and false positives > if any. Thank you for the roadmap! Honestly I am not so familiar with Clang AST and Clang Static Analyzer details (all my experience is writing some simple checkers for clang-tidy and watching some videos about Clang/Clang Static Analyzers), so I even don't understand of your words :) So don't rely on quick fixes from my side. But I think I can write something useful after couple of tries (slowly, but I can). Thank you for the help! https://reviews.llvm.org/D33672 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
