NoQ added inline comments.
================
Comment at:
include/clang/StaticAnalyzer/Core/PathSensitive/AnalysisManager.h:144
+ // includes the full path.
+ if (SM.getFilename(IL).contains("UnifiedSource")) {
+ StringRef Name = SM.getFilename(SL);
----------------
george.karpenkov wrote:
> Is this `if` really necessary? This logic has too much overfitting, and it
> seems that if someone decides to include `.cc` files, we should analyze them
> in any case, right? We also would prefer to not stop working if webkit
> decides on using a different naming for those.
This is indeed an act of overfitting. But also there are very few reasons to
include a non-header file, and all of them are pretty exotic. I'm not sure we
want to analyze these files in all cases. So i want to play safe until we
gather more data.
================
Comment at:
include/clang/StaticAnalyzer/Core/PathSensitive/AnalysisManager.h:148
+ Name.endswith_lower(".cc") || Name.endswith_lower(".m") ||
+ Name.endswith_lower(".mm")) {
+ return true;
----------------
baloghadamsoftware wrote:
> Although not very common, but .cxx is also a possibly extension for C++
> source files.
Yup, thanks!
================
Comment at: test/Analysis/unified-sources/source1.cpp:8
+ if (x) {}
+ return 1 / x; // expected-warning{{}}
+}
----------------
george.karpenkov wrote:
> Wow, expected-* directives work across multiple files?? This is really cool!
`-verify` works over preprocessed files, so yeah, these directives respect
`#if`s (which we regularly abuse) and `#include`s (which we rarely abuse). This
test also acts as a normal test, but the `UnifiedSource-1.cpp` test is the one
that'll fail if we break the newly added functionality.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D45839
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
