On Nov 1, 2010, at 5:19 PM, Ted Kremenek wrote:
> I disagree. Most checkers don't care about such functions.
Those checkers are making assumptions that don't hold in C++, where not all
names are simple identifiers. The rest of the front end has been updated to
cope with DeclarationName and it hasn't ever been a problem. Why now?
> Forcing them to always think about cases that they mostly don't care about
> seems suboptimal and verbose.
... but we don't generally change our AST because two checkers find a NULL
check to be inconvenient, so what's your concrete proposal here?
- Doug
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Nov 1, 2010, at 5:02 PM, Douglas Gregor <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Nov 1, 2010, at 4:50 PM, Ted Kremenek wrote:
>>
>>> That said, the unfortunate thing about this is that it means that all
>>> checkers that implement VisitCallExpr() will need to do this checking.
>>> That seems really suboptimal. It seems to me that only a few checkers will
>>> care about operator methods.
>>
>> Checkers that look at the name of the function called need to be aware that
>> not all names are simple identifiers. The seems completely reasonable to me.
>>
>> - Doug
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
