At 03:25 PM 11/1/2010, Ted Kremenek wrote: >On Nov 1, 2010, at 2:45 PM, Jim Goodnow II wrote: > > > Well, those calls would actually be MemberCallExpr's, so it wouldn't > > occur in VisitCallExpr. The problem is really just an artifact of > > CXXOperatorCalls being grouped together with Calls. Eventually, they > > will probably be separated and this check can go away. > >Hi Jim, > >Why don't we do the right fix now? (i.e., do the refactoring you >are suggesting). > >Ted
Well, Doug has a point. I hadn't seen that syntax before, but it does come through as a CallExpr and needs to be handled properly. My revised patch handles it. I'll look at the refactor as well. - jim _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
