Szelethus marked an inline comment as done.
Szelethus added inline comments.
================
Comment at:
clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/StdLibraryFunctionsChecker.cpp:328-329
struct Signature {
- const ArgTypes ArgTys;
- const QualType RetTy;
+ ArgTypes ArgTys;
+ QualType RetTy;
Signature(ArgTypes ArgTys, QualType RetTy) : ArgTys(ArgTys), RetTy(RetTy) {
----------------
martong wrote:
> Szelethus wrote:
> > Ah right, because we need to copy this. Shame that `Optional` can't just
> > inplace construct the object with a copy constructor or something.
> The problem is rather with the copy assignment. I think, copy construction
> could be implemented if we keep the `const`, but assignment is not.
Yes, but copy assignment happens because out optional isn't optimal (hehe)
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2018-July/058427.html. Anyways, it is
what it is. You could add a comment about this, but it might not be worthwhile.
================
Comment at:
clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/StdLibraryFunctionsChecker.cpp:1746
+ if (StructSockaddrPtrRestrictTy && Socklen_tPtrRestrictTy) {
+ auto Accept = Summary(NoEvalCall)
+ .ArgConstraint(ArgumentCondition(0, WithinRange,
----------------
martong wrote:
> Szelethus wrote:
> > `AcceptSummary`?
> I prefer simply `Accept` because right after the `=` sign we have the
> `Summary` string :)
Fair enough.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D83407/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D83407
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
