martong marked 2 inline comments as done.
martong added a comment.
In D79425#2022245 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D79425#2022245>, @xazax.hun wrote:
> I'd prefer to have this functionality committed together its first actual use
> with tests.
Okay, at the current state we add a summary individually for each name, that
makes it easier to modify a summary for each function without effecting other
functions.
> I also agree with @balazske, we should diagnose the cases when we have
> multiple summaries for the same function.
We already handle these cases with an assertion:
auto Res = Map.insert({FD->getCanonicalDecl(), S});
assert(Res.second && "Function already has a summary set!");
(void)Res;
================
Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/StdLibraryFunctionsChecker.cpp:672
+ operator()(Name, S);
+ }
} addToFunctionSummaryMap(ACtx, FunctionSummaryMap);
----------------
balazske wrote:
> Theoretically it is possible to have a //multiple names//-//multiple
> summaries// case (multiple function names that have the same overloads)?
I think yes, that would be possible.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D79425/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D79425
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
