MTC marked an inline comment as done. MTC added a comment. Hi peter,
Thank you very much for your help. > - I think the current display information is ambiguous. If I did not know the > code then I would not understand what this stands for. (That is just my > opinon.) I think Artem's "Contents of <...> are wiped" idea is better but I > would go with something like this: "Invalidated previously known information > on <...>". (Maybe remove the word 'previously' if its too long.) It still can > be weird for the user that why this happened but at least in case of a false > positive he/she can see that why this was even considered by the analyzer. Yes, that's the problem. The information displayed to the user should be clear, but not difficult to understand. > - Right now there is a "race condition" between your patch and D36690 > <https://reviews.llvm.org/D36690>. So in order to avoid "conflicts" I'd ask > you to add some variable changing effect to the body of the loop. For example > in the last test case the variable 'num' is the one which you use to show the > effect of widening. In this case a line like `num++` or `num = i` would > ensure that the more precise widening invalidates it as well. Other thing is > that handling loops which contains pointer operation or nested loops will be > a little bit more conservative, so you these will not be widened like now. > (However, test_for_bug_25609()) still should be valid. I'll update the test file，:D. > - Please upload the diff with context (git flag: -U99999) since it is really > helpful for the review. About ‘git diff’, that's my mistake, and I'll add this option next time. Thank you very much for pointing it out! > - +1 inline comment below. https://reviews.llvm.org/D37187 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
