Good catch! Applied here: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?view=rev&revision=112569
On Aug 30, 2010, at 3:10 PM, Jim Goodnow II wrote: > Hi, > > I'm new to the Clang list and while reading through the static analyzer code, > noticed some inconsistencies and thought I would make some minor revisions to > get the hang of things. In this case, I noticed that the warning for > returning an undefined value didn't flag the value, just the return keyword. > Please let me know if this is the proper protocol. For instance, when you > attach a .patch file, should you include the text of the patch in the e-mail > as well? Thanks. > > - jim > > Index: lib/Checker/ReturnUndefChecker.cpp > =================================================================== > --- lib/Checker/ReturnUndefChecker.cpp (revision 112505) > +++ lib/Checker/ReturnUndefChecker.cpp (working copy) > @@ -61,6 +61,7 @@ > EnhancedBugReport *report = > new EnhancedBugReport(*BT, BT->getDescription(), N); > > + report->addRange(RetE->getSourceRange()); > report->addVisitorCreator(bugreporter::registerTrackNullOrUndefValue, RetE); > > > C.EmitReport(report);<ReturnUndefChecker.patch>_______________________________________________ > cfe-commits mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
