Hi Jim, I agree that VisitCallExpr() needs to handle explicit calls to operatorXX(), but for the regular cases we should handle that in a separate visitor callback.
Ted On Nov 1, 2010, at 3:32 PM, Jim Goodnow II wrote: > 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
