NoQ added a comment. In D52957#2383373 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D52957#2383373>, @steakhal wrote:
> In D52957#2379330 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D52957#2379330>, @NoQ wrote: > >> The argument value can be computed by taking the size of the type (and >> aligning to the requested alignment, i guess(?)) and multiplying it by array >> size (for which there is an expression) in case of array new. It'd be great >> to write down these computations once in the `CallEvent` class and then >> re-use them. > > Should I provide them as member functions to the `CXXAllocatorCall ` class? > Something like `size_t getAlignment()` and `size_t getAllocationSize()`? Yes. Note that allocation size is not necessarily concrete, so you'll have to return an `SVal` there. Alignment, i guess, is always concrete (?) you'll probably still want to return an `SVal` because a lot of users will want an `SVal` anyway. >> I guess the actual shocking truth here is that we've never performed these >> computations when inlining the allocators; the size argument that's bound to >> the size parameter in the Store while the allocator body is inlined ended up >> being a fresh symbol, which is not correct. > > I might miss something to understand this. Could you elaborate on that if you > think is related? For `CXXAllocatorCall`'s implicit arguments `getArgSVal()` always fails and returns an `UnknownVal` as it stumbles upon lack of expression and doesn't know how to work around it. In particular, it fails in `addParameterValuesToBindings()` which leaves the respective Store bindings empty. Repository: rL LLVM CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D52957/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D52957 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
