MTC added inline comments.
================ Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/IteratorChecker.cpp:399 + + C.addTransition(State); } ---------------- NoQ wrote: > MTC wrote: > > I have two questions may need @NoQ or @xazax.hun who is more familiar with > > the analyzer engine help to answer. > > > > - `State` may not change at all, do we need a check here like [[ > > https://github.com/llvm-mirror/clang/blob/master/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/ArrayBoundCheckerV2.cpp#L227 > > | if (state != originalState) ]] > > - A more basic problem is that do we need `originalState = State` trick. > > It seems that `addTransitionImpl()` has a check about same state > > transition, see [[ > > https://github.com/llvm-mirror/clang/blob/master/include/clang/StaticAnalyzer/Core/PathSensitive/CheckerContext.h#L339 > > | addTransitionImp() ]]. > > > > Thanks in advance! > > > > > > > > It seems that `addTransitionImpl()` has a check about same state > > transition, see `addTransitionImp()`. > > Yep, you pretty much answered your question. The check in the checker code is > unnecessary. Thanks, NoQ! It seems that `if (state != originalState)` in some checkers is misleading and may need to be cleaned up. Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D47417 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
