Alexander_Droste added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/MPI-Checker/MPIBugReporter.cpp:96
@@ +95,3 @@
+ if (const CallExpr *CE = clang::dyn_cast<CallExpr>(SP->getStmt())) {
+
+ auto FuncIdentifier = CE->getDirectCallee()->getIdentifier();
----------------
zaks.anna wrote:
> The advantage of using the state is that it will be much more robust to any
> further changes to the compiler/checker because you will not be pattern
> matching the AST but instead will be checking the state, which the core
> reasoning is based on. One example that comes to mind is indirect calls. You
> will reduce the amount of code here as well, simplifying maintainability.
> This is the pattern we use in other checkers as well, so there is a remote
> chance we could introduce a new simplified API that will do the walk for the
> checker writers.
>
> With respect to your example. Does it come up in practice? Wouldn't you warn
> on the second nonblocking request anyway? Could you add such an example to
> the tests? (Would be good in any case. If you leave the code as is, you can
> point to that example as the motivation.)
I'll change this to the pattern you suggested.
>With respect to your example. Does it come up in practice?
It's for sure a little contrived.
>Wouldn't you warn on the second nonblocking request anyway?
Yes.
>Could you add such an example to the tests?
Sure.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D12761
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
