baloghadamsoftware marked an inline comment as done. baloghadamsoftware added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/ExprEngineCXX.cpp:112 +Optional<SVal> ExprEngine::retrieveFromConstructionContext( + ProgramStateRef State, const LocationContext *LCtx, ---------------- NoQ wrote: > baloghadamsoftware wrote: > > NoQ wrote: > > > Please instead re-use the code that computes the object under > > > construction. That'll save you ~50 lines of code and will be more > > > future-proof (eg., standalone temporaries without destructor technically > > > have a construction context with 0 items so when we implement them > > > correctly your procedure will stop working). > > That was so my first thought. However, `handleConstructionContext()` is > > private and non-static. Now I tried to merge the two methods: if the value > > is already in the construction context, we return it, if not then we add > > it. Is this what you suggest? Or did I misunderstand you? At the very > > beginning I tried to simply use `handleConstructionContext()`, but it > > asserted because the value was already in the map. > I'd like to preserve the assertion that objects-under-construction are never > filled twice; it's a very useful sanity check. What you need in your checker > is a function that computes object-under-construction but doesn't put it into > the objects-under-construction map. So you have to separate the computation > from filling in the state. OK, so I (fortunately) misundertood you. Thus I should refactor this function to a calculation and a storing part? CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D80366/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D80366 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
