steakhal added a comment. In D152436#4408811 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D152436#4408811>, @balazske wrote:
> In D152436#4408301 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D152436#4408301>, @steakhal > wrote: > >> I looked at the TPs, and if the violation was introduced by an assumption >> (instead of an assignment), then it's really hard to spot which assumption >> is important for the bug. >> I wonder if we could add the `TrackConstraintBRVisitor` to the bugreport to >> "highlight" that particular assumption/place. > > The question is first if this problem must be fixed before the checker comes > out of alpha state. If yes I try to make another patch with this fix. I tried > this previously but do not remember exactly what the problem was. WIthout an explicit note message there, I don't see how could we advertise this as a "mature" checker. ================ Comment at: clang/docs/analyzer/checkers.rst:922 + +unix.StdCLibraryFunctions (C) +""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" ---------------- balazske wrote: > This is applicable to C++ too? Yes it's applicable to c++ if they use these C APIs. However, I would prefer not to extend it with C++. IMO that would only raise confusion. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D152436/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D152436 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
