r.stahl added inline comments.
================ Comment at: include/clang/CrossTU/CrossTranslationUnit.h:114 + llvm::Expected<const VarDecl *> + getCrossTUDefinition(const VarDecl *VD, StringRef CrossTUDir, + StringRef IndexName); ---------------- xazax.hun wrote: > I wonder if we need these overloads. Maybe having only the templated version > and having a static assert for the supported types is better? Asking the > other reviewers as well. They are not required, but I thought they make the interface more clear and help prevent implementation in headers. ================ Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Frontend/AnalysisConsumer.cpp:354 + if (!VD->hasExternalStorage() || + VD->getAnyInitializer() != nullptr) + return true; ---------------- xazax.hun wrote: > Will this work for zero initialized globals (i.e. not having an initializer > expression) that are defined in the current translation unit? It would be > great to have a test case for that. If a variable has a definition in the current TU, it may not have another one else where, but you're correct that this case will continue here. It will however only result in a failed lookup. Similar but backwards: If an extern var is defined in another TU with global zero init. Overall I'd say that default initializing a constant to zero is pretty uncommon (and invalid in C++), so that in my opinion it's fine to not support it for now. It seems like there is no transparent way to get the initializer including that case or am I missing something? https://reviews.llvm.org/D46421 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
