On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 20:05:37 -0700, Jordy Rose <jedik...@belkadan.com> wrote: >> You also made the following comment: >> >> +// FIXME: This was originally copied from ArrayBoundChecker.cpp. >> Refactor? >> >> I absolutely agree, although I'm fine with a check going in like this >> first and then refactoring. There is a bunch of logic here with > tremendous >> overlap with ArrayBoundChecker. Perhaps we should build a more generic >> "out-of-bounds detection" API, and make ArrayBoundChecker a > "meta-checker". >> Not sure. > > The main issue is that the bounds check shouldn't really emit the bug on > its own. But that leaves it in an awkward place, interface-wise. Does it > return a pair of StInBound and StOutBound, and force the caller to do the > feasibility check? Does it return a bool, and supply the necessary state by > reference? It's too bad we need a state whether the check fails or not. > > I wish we could use blocks; I'd just pass in a "bug-reporting" block that > takes an ExplodedNode. Maybe it should take a function pointer? > > Maybe we should leave it as is? *grin*
I take it back; in the common case it would be sufficient to pass in a bug reference and description. Would that suffice? (Also where would this code live?) _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
