On Sun, 30 May 2010 18:26:05 -0700, Ted Kremenek <kreme...@apple.com> wrote: > This code was added to support addressing within a larger (non-array, > non-struct) object, e.g.: > > int x = 10; > char *y = ((char*) &x) + 1; > return *y; > > The code was too aggressive in the cases it handled. I've now checked in > a refinement which causes the test case for PR 7218 to now pass: > > http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?view=rev&revision=105195 > > Zhongxing: Please review this patch and let me know what you think. > > Jordy: Please review it as well. Once we're satisfied, let's move on to > talking about your changes to MallocChecker.
Mm. Yeah, it's not /so/ tidy, but it does limit it to the one example that's there, and it's unlikely to disturb anything else. And of course I have no better idea. _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
