-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13.5k
[NFC][analyzer] Multipart checker refactor 2: NullabilityChecker #132250
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Draft
NagyDonat
wants to merge
4
commits into
llvm:main
Choose a base branch
from
Ericsson:Nullability-to-new-framework
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Draft
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
d4878a6
[NFC][analyzer] Multipart checker refactor 2: NullabilityChecker
NagyDonat 2708bed
Remove hidden dummy checker part NullabilityBase
NagyDonat 3ca23ce
Use `BugType` parameters for `reportBug{,IfInvariantHolds}`
NagyDonat d490c74
Special case NoDiagnoseCallsToSystemHeaders as group-level option
NagyDonat File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Have you tried to directly pass a BugType ref instead of an index?
An integer index is less typed than a BugType, so it's easier to mess up and do unintended things with it.
Have you tried passing a BugType here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Good idea, I'll implement it.
I didn't think about this question and just mechanically translated the
enum CheckKind
(essentially another integer type) toCheckerPartIdx
-- but in this particular checker it will be only used to getBugTypes[Idx]
so I can switch to passing a bug type ref.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I implemented this suggestion in 3ca23ce -- but this led to repeating
BugTypes[ ... ]
nine times and I feel that it might be a bit too verbose.I would slightly prefer switching back to using
CheckerPartIdx
as the type of these parameters (to make these already cumbersome calls a bit less verbose), but I can also accept usingBugType
if you say that it's better.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This feels like a technical difficulty.
You could create a
bug(checker)
member fn that gives you the right BugType. Or a reference member to the right BugType.I'll have a look at your current PR tomorrow to give you concrete suggestions.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The repeated code fragment is already very short: using bug types instead of indices means that I need to write
BugTypes[LongAndConvolutedNameChecker]
instead of plainLongAndConvolutedNameChecker
. Introducing a method as you suggested wouldn't be a significant improvementbug(LongAndConvolutedNameChecker)
is approximately the same as the array indexing.Overall, I'm very close to indifferent in this question -- the stakes are negligible.