szepet added a comment. Hi Eugen! Good question, probably should have detailed it in the description. This matcher based solution would not gain much benefit from the symbolic execution provided information. (I mean, it would mean a much different type of check on the states.) The main problems that the analyzer does not completely unroll the loops only the first steps and we always have information about the simulated path. However, detecting that some variables will surely not be modified requires a top level overview on the loop and the AST provides these informations. The one thing (that I can say right now) that can come handy is that we would able to detect more precisely the happened-before relation on the escape and the loop statements. Since the CFG can provide us fair enough information on this one, I do not think that this is enough reason to put this checker to the analyzer.
Other note: If somebody would came up with an approach which can benefit from the symbolic execution, these solutions could still live happily in the different tools eg. UseAfterMove (tidy) and MisusedMovedObjectChecker (analyzer). https://reviews.llvm.org/D40937 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
