- User Since
- Jul 19 2017, 6:59 AM (258 w, 2 d)
I read https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/structured_binding carefully, and there are a number of interesting rules that might deserve their own test case, even if this isn't the patch where you solve that issue, or believe that the solution handles it without the need for special case handling.
No need for post commit fixes, just general observations since I noticed them.
Tue, Jun 28
I tried poking this from a few directions, like nasty GNU extension types, ObjCObjectPointerType, but those seem orthogonal to this patch. Looks great! I'd wait for someone else's approval as well, as I try my best to pick up the thread.
Mon, Jun 6
Apr 8 2022
Mar 30 2022
Fixes according to reviewer comments.
Very well :) Let's abandon this in its current state, I share this sentiment:
Mar 24 2022
LGTM! You did check whether a missing doc field will actually trigger this error, right?
Mar 23 2022
LGTM on my end, this is awesome!
Mar 22 2022
Mar 16 2022
Seems like all new files are missing the header blurb about the licence.
Mar 11 2022
Mar 8 2022
Mar 6 2022
Mar 4 2022
Mar 3 2022
Mar 1 2022
Feb 25 2022
Feb 23 2022
Remove a newline.
Feb 22 2022
Can we reopen this if the code is not upstream at this time?
Feb 10 2022
Sorry for the slack, I assumed this was accepted already. Thanks!
Feb 9 2022
Fixes according to reviewer comments.
- Rename from .*Imprecise to .*AsWritten.
- Copy comments to relevant functions.
Feb 8 2022
LGTM! Unrelated to this review, I don't think the term 'sink' is good in a warning message, are users expected to know what that is?
Feb 7 2022
Sounds about right! Just a nit, otherwise LGTM.
Feb 5 2022
Now that I remember, the ever so slightly different overloads of ProgramState::getSVal is a prime example I think. I always percieved that I have the means to invoke several of them at any point, but I never really knew which one. Though, to be fair, they were not documented particularly well (at least as I remember it).
Feb 4 2022
Move CallDescription specific changes to D119004.
Feb 3 2022
Feb 1 2022
Jan 24 2022
Fix tests, mention that this is purely a heuristic.
Jan 11 2022
Jan 4 2022
Jan 3 2022
First off, your patch is great, and I'm pretty sure we want it!
Add a default text, if another, unhandled unnamed identifier pops up.
Dec 11 2021
Dec 10 2021
Nov 19 2021
Nov 15 2021
I recognize the problem, but don't agree with the solution: this is a CallDescriptionSet at this point, not a CallDescriptionMap. Also, I just don't think this is the place to use template specialization, nor do I think we should keep the function name lookup, if we only care about whether the call is in the set or not.
I guess this constructor prevents us from to just put this into ArrayRef:
Nov 11 2021
I'll intend to land this by friday unless there are objections!
Nov 9 2021
Maybe we should change the name of this checker to NullConstructedString or something, instead of piling even more different kinds of warnings into it in the future. Or maybe not. In any case, the patch LGTM!
Nov 8 2021
Fix incorrect sectioning.
Clarify the summary.
Delete unnecessary includes.
More fitting iterator names in the test files.
Nov 4 2021
Nov 2 2021
Big yes to the idea, the config of choice as the first to document seems fine, but I'm not sure we should lecture the user right in the very first paragraph. How about a short description of what a FAM is in the first place, than examples of the 3 types of it, and why we assume that only the first and the second to be such by default. If you insist, a word of caution would be okay in the last paragraph.
Sep 23 2021
Commited in rGee6913cc8317c08b603daed64b07a17a95ec926a to release/13.x.
Sep 14 2021
rGfb4d590a622f4031900516360c07ee6ace01c5e6 should sort this out!
I'll attend to this ASAP. Thanks for the heads up!
Sep 13 2021
Gonna land this in a day or two, regardless of whether its accepted! Please take a look if you have anything to object to!
I like everything I see here so far! As soon as those debug functions are in, the patch should land!
Sep 8 2021
Sep 4 2021
Sep 3 2021
Fixes according to reviewer comments, cheers!
Lets go! Mind that you wrote "eazy" instead of "easy" in the revision name. But, if you are just being that "kewl", I don't mind!