Charusso added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/CastValueChecker.cpp:51
+
+ const CallDescriptionMap<CastCheck> SugarCastCDM = {
+ {{{"clang", "castAs"}, 0}, &CastValueChecker::evalCastAs},
----------------
NoQ wrote:
> I'd rather have only one map from call descriptions to (callback, kind)
> pairs. This should make the `evalCall` code much more readable.
The problem with that I really want to use something like that:
```
auto &&[Check, Kind, MoreData] = *Lookup;
```
but I cannot. Until that time it equally non-readable and difficult to scale
sadly. For now it is fine, but that C++17 feature would be more awesome.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/CastValueChecker.cpp:231
+ // If we cannot obtain 'MCE' we cannot be sure how to model it.
+ const auto *MCE = dyn_cast<CXXMemberCallExpr>(CE->IgnoreParenImpCasts());
+ if (!MCE)
----------------
NoQ wrote:
> ```lang=c++
> const auto *InstanceCall = dyn_cast<CXXInstanceCall>(&Call);
> ...
> DV = InstanceCall->getCXXThisVal();
> ```
Hm, not bad. Thanks!
================
Comment at: clang/test/Analysis/cast-value.cpp:186
+ // expected-note@-1 {{Assuming pointer value is null}}
+ // expected-note@-2 {{Assuming dynamic cast to 'Circle' succeeds}}
+ // expected-note@-3 {{'C' initialized here}}
----------------
NoQ wrote:
> To think: this note isn't very useful because hard casts aren't really
> supposed to fail anyway.
I believe it is better than the generic `Assuming...` piece.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D65889/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D65889
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
