NoQ accepted this revision.
NoQ added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Ok, so the point is to fix the current checker name problem, right? I guess
let's land it then :)
Code looks great. I'm thinking aloud in inline comments a little bit, but don't
mind me.
@rnkovacs, do you have any immediate opinions on how the header structure
changes here?
================
Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/InnerPointer/InnerPointerChecker.h:23-25
+ CallDescription AppendFn, AssignFn, ClearFn, CStrFn, DataFn, EraseFn,
+ InsertFn, PopBackFn, PushBackFn, ReplaceFn, ReserveFn, ResizeFn,
+ ShrinkToFitFn, SwapFn;
----------------
We should eventually initialize these in place.
================
Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Frontend/CheckerRegistry.cpp:160
+ firstRelatedChecker != lastRelatedChecker; ++firstRelatedChecker) {
+ if (opt.second) {
+ // Enable the checker.
----------------
Because we already forget by now what the second part of this pair is, i
believe that decomposing a `std::pair` into two variables as early as possible
is a good idea.
Repository:
rC Clang
https://reviews.llvm.org/D54438
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
