martong added a comment.
Thanks for the review guys!
================
Comment at:
clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/StdLibraryFunctionsChecker.cpp:537-551
+ // The format is as follows:
//{ "function name",
- // { spec:
+ // { variant0:
// { argument types list, ... },
- // return type, purity, { range set list:
+ // return type, purity, { specification list:
// { range list:
// { argument index, within or out of, {{from, to}, ...} },
----------------
NoQ wrote:
> martong wrote:
> > NoQ wrote:
> > > I suspect that this comment would need a lot more updates.
> > Could you please elaborate? Do you mean to add comments e.g. to
> > `ArgumentCondition` and the rest below? Or to rewrite the above comment?
> Actually let's ditch it entirely. It was worth it when it was all macros, so
> that it was apparent how macros expanded, but now it's pretty
> self-explanatory all the way.
>
> Otherwise i was thinking about making this a pattern that the user can
> copy-paste and fill in. Like, maybe, include all the constructors explicitly
> (`Summary`, `ArgTypes`, etc.).
Ok, I ditched it.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/StdLibraryFunctionsChecker.cpp:598
+ Summaries{
+ Summary(ArgTypes{IntTy}, RetType(IntTy), EvalCallAsPure)
+ // Boils down to isupper() or islower() or isdigit().
----------------
NoQ wrote:
> Just curious, can `RetType` also use curly braces?
Yes. I've changed it to use the curly braces with `RetType` too, now the format
is more consistent with `ArgTypes`.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D73897/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D73897
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
