2009/11/10 Ted Kremenek <[email protected]>: > > On Nov 9, 2009, at 6:11 PM, Zhongxing Xu wrote: > > 2009/11/10 Ted Kremenek <[email protected]>: > > I wasn't arguing that we make the check malloc() specific, and I don't think > > we should because the problem is more general than just looking at pointers > > returned from malloc(). We just need to make it smart enough that when it > > gives a warning, it is: > > (a) correct most of the time > > (b) gives a meaningful diagnostic that people understand how they screwed up > > and how they can fix the issue > > I don't think we need to make it malloc() specific, but we can educate the > > check about malloc() if that helps accomplish (a) and (b). > > Make sense. Let's start with malloc. I'm fine to remove this too general > check. > > I think we should just grind the check over real code first to get idea of > when it fires. That should be a superset of the cases we care about.
Yeah. _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
