[PATCH] D127898: [clang][dataflow] Add API to separate analysis from diagnosis

[Sam Estep via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

samestep added inline comments.


================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/Analysis/FlowSensitive/Diagnosis.h:57
+  }
+  return std::move(Diags);
+}
----------------
sgatev wrote:
> Better to remove this and rely on NRVO? https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/copy_elision
Ah OK, I'm not a C++ expert so I wasn't sure when to write `std::move` and when not to. Will do, thanks!


================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/Analysis/FlowSensitive/MatchSwitch.h:49
+template <typename DiagsT> struct DiagnoseState {
+  DiagnoseState(DiagsT &Diags, const Environment &Env)
+      : Diags(Diags), Env(Env) {}
----------------
sgatev wrote:
> samestep wrote:
> > sgatev wrote:
> > > Move this to Diagnosis.h?
> > I'd prefer to keep it in `MatchSwitch.h` alongside `TransferState`, unless we plan to, e.g., move that type to `DataflowAnalysis.h`.
> Fair enough, but generally I see `TransferState` and `DiagnoseState` as very specific to the dataflow analysis framework whereas `MatchSwitchBuilder` seems to be a bit more generic so I'd consider separating them.
Sure, if people think it makes sense to put those two types elsewhere then we can do that in a followup.


================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/Analysis/FlowSensitive/Models/UncheckedOptionalAccessModel.h:76
 
+class UncheckedOptionalAccessDiagnosis {
+public:
----------------
sgatev wrote:
> samestep wrote:
> > samestep wrote:
> > > sgatev wrote:
> > > > samestep wrote:
> > > > > samestep wrote:
> > > > > > sgatev wrote:
> > > > > > > Move this to a new UncheckedOptionalAccessDiagnosis.(h,cpp)?
> > > > > > OK! I'll do that next.
> > > > > Actually, @sgatev would that go under `FlowSensitive/Models/` or just under `FlowSensitive/`?
> > > > I suggest keeping it under `FlowSensitive/Models/` for now. We can change that at a later point if there's a better alternative.
> > > Where should I put the `UncheckedOptionalAccessModelOptions` type and `ignorableOptional` function that need to be shared between both the model and the diagnosis?
> > Same question for the following other helper functions:
> > 
> > - `hasOptionalType`
> > - `isOptionalMemberCallWithName`
> > - `isOptionalOperatorCallWithName`
> > 
> > Given how much code is shared between the two, I'm really not sure whether it's the best idea to move this into a separate file in this patch...
> I suggest either declaring those in the header and using them from `UncheckedOptionalAccessDiagnosis.cpp` or moving them to a separate file and including them both in the model and in the diagnosis. In general I think it's fair if the diagnosis depends on the model, but not the other way around. It's perfectly fine if we do this refactoring in a follow up.
Yep, makes sense; I just didn't want to make declarations for all those in a header file in this patch.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D127898/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D127898