martong accepted this revision. martong added a comment. Herald added a subscriber: rnkovacs.
In D79072#2026553 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D79072#2026553>, @balazske wrote: > This change is relatively small and the refactoring like part (introduction > of `checkVLA` if I think correct?) is connected to its use. The other change > is add of a new function (callback). This is probably small enough to go into > one change and we can see why the new function `checkVLA` is needed. So my > vote is to not split this change. Okay, you convinced me. LGTM! ================ Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/ExprEngineC.cpp:577 + if (isa<TypedefNameDecl>(*DS->decl_begin())) { + ExplodedNodeSet DstPre; + getCheckerManager().runCheckersForPreStmt(DstPre, Pred, DS, *this); ---------------- balazske wrote: > Should we not do something else with the VLA size expressions (not only call > the checker callbacks) because they should be evaluated, are these handled in > some other way automatically? (The CFG should contain these expressions > already so these should be evaluated by the engine, and this place is only to > make the checkers aware of `typedef` statements.) Yeah, I agree with @balazske. This could be used for anything else in the future, not just for VLA. It is more generic than that. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D79072/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D79072 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
