- User Since
- Apr 14 2017, 1:59 PM (92 w, 5 d)
We would start getting crashes from TrustNonnullChecker if we enable it. Shouldn't those be fixed first?
An input which crashes with this assertion is test/Analysis/trustnonnullchecker_test.m.
Hmmm, does this mess with options that bad? Could you please clarify?
Committed in 2bdfe0ca7a5903d24a920c8e46db28261eed0543
Deal with the consequences of this, and just correct all plist files to now refer to the new base checker.
Fri, Jan 18
The code is fine, but I obviously would prefer a proper fix in a CFG
Thu, Jan 17
Addressed comments. Not sure about Inputs: plenty of headers are in the root directory.
LG, but it sounds like something which can skew results a lot (?)
Wed, Jan 16
Tue, Jan 15
Mon, Jan 14
@davispuh Someone needs to actually merge the change. Usually, the person who has opened the revision does it, but if they don't have it commit access the reviewer can do it for them (but then it is usually explicitly requested).
Would you like me to merge this?
@Pierre-vh The patch does not compile due to unmatched braces. Please do test and compile before submitting!
Whoops, sorry. There were holidays, and then I did forget about this patch. I'll commit this now.
Fri, Jan 11
Apologies - the value seems to indeed overflow, but I'm still very confused how this was affected by this change.
This was committed, accidentally with the wrong associated revision number in 49ce62edef6f7e5da22eecaf3997c800bb961cac