muggenhor added a comment.
FYI: I've added a set of tests. But in the process discovered there's at least
one assumption that doesn't hold for boost::optional. So I'll have to adjust
the implementation for that. That's a bit more involved change, so will take
some time.
(Specifically the assum
PiotrZSL requested changes to this revision.
PiotrZSL added a comment.
This revision now requires changes to proceed.
- Add some simple test (positive and negative), just to prove that it's detected
- Add release note entry
- Add entry in check documentation, that boost::optional may be partially
gribozavr2 added a comment.
The mock optional types in the unit test are just declarations of the API -
they don't need any implementations (function or method bodies should be
omitted). But the declarations of classes, methods, and functions should mirror
the production header closely. There a
muggenhor added a comment.
Sure. Looking at the test I'm unsure though, are the `optional` implementations
in there stripped copies of the real implementations? Or just a minimal
implementation that fits the basic optional interface in the given namespace?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
gribozavr2 added a comment.
Could you change the tests to cover the new case? They are here:
`llvm-project/clang/unittests/Analysis/FlowSensitive/UncheckedOptionalAccessModelTest.cpp`
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D151192/new/
https
muggenhor created this revision.
Herald added subscribers: carlosgalvezp, xazax.hun.
Herald added a reviewer: NoQ.
Herald added a project: All.
muggenhor requested review of this revision.
Herald added a project: clang.
Herald added a subscriber: cfe-commits.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
