NoQ added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/FuchsiaHandleChecker.cpp:207
+ int PtrToHandleLevel = 0;
+ const Type *T = QT.getTypePtr();
+ while (T->isAnyPointerType() || T->isReferenceType() || T->isArrayType()) {
----------------
xazax.hun wrote:
> NoQ wrote:
> > This is never necessary, just call all the methods directly on `QT` - it
> > has an overloaded operator `->()` for this.
> `getPointeeOrArrayElementType` returns a `Type *`, so I cannot really
> continue to use `QualType` and I am not interested in the qualifiers at all.
Whoops ^.^"
================
Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/FuchsiaHandleChecker.cpp:208
+ const Type *T = QT.getTypePtr();
+ while (T->isAnyPointerType() || T->isReferenceType() || T->isArrayType()) {
+ ++PtrToHandleLevel;
----------------
xazax.hun wrote:
> NoQ wrote:
> > Ok, so what's the deal with arrays here? If the function receives an array
> > of handles, do you ultimately plan to return multiple symbols - one for
> > each element of the array?
> >
> > Also, in the generic non-Fuchsia case, what if the handle itself is a
> > pointer?
> I do not have a real plan with arrays just yet. Creating eagerly a symbol for
> all the elements might look a bit wasteful but also users are probably not
> expected to have large arrays of handles? Probably I should remove that code
> for now.
>
> I would expect non-Fuchsia checkers to introduce their own `getHandleSymbol`
> logic. Does that make sense? Maybe I should rename this to
> `getFuchsiaHandleSymbol`.
But, i mean, why do you even consider arrays in this code? Why not simply `QT =
QT->getPointeeType()`?
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D70470/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D70470
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
