danielmarjamaki marked 4 inline comments as done.
danielmarjamaki added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/UndefResultChecker.cpp:126
+ << BinaryOperator::getOpcodeStr(B->getOpcode())
+ << "' expression is undefined due to shift count >= width of type";
+ } else {
----------------
zaks.anna wrote:
> It's best not to use ">=" in diagnostic messages.
> Suggestions: "due to shift count >= width of type" ->
> - "due to shifting by a value larger than the width of type"
> - "due to shifting by 5, which is larger than the width of type 'int'" //
> Providing the exact value and the type would be very useful and this
> information is readily available to us. Note that the users might not see the
> type or the value because of macros and such.
I used "due to shifting by 5, which is larger than the width of type 'int'"
However I did not see an easy way to show the exact value. So I added
getConcreteValue(). Maybe you have a better suggestion. If it's a ConcreteInt I
show the exact value, but if it's some range etc then I write "due to shifting
by a value that is larger..." instead.
The message "due to shifting by 64, which is larger than the width of type
'unsigned long long'" is a bit weird imho. Because 64 is not larger than the
width. Not sure how this can be rephrazed better though.
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D30295
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
