vsavchenko added a comment. In D104550#2832983 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D104550#2832983>, @Szelethus wrote:
> This is not an urgent, but still a very important issue: `SVal` is likely > among the first things a new developer in the analyzer sees. Its common > around the university here that some students barely halfway through their > BSc are given smaller tasks, like the implementation of a checker in the > static analyzer. Instead of > > // Try to get a reasonable type for the given value. > > Maybe we should tell why this might fail, why its not just a type but a best > effort, etc. > > Despite being in the analyzer for so long, I don't have anything anything > meaningful to add just yet :) That's a good point! I guess the main obstacle for a meaningful description of "why this might fail" is what @NoQ mentioned: "all values are supposed to be typed". But if we go that deep in one commit (even doing it for a rather simple pointer-to-member case is not so small of a change), we won't get this feature at all. Do you think that "for the sake of incremental approach"-like comment can help? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D104550/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D104550 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits