On May 20, 2011, at 4:34 PM, Jim Goodnow II wrote:
> Well, you could ask that about any static analysis checker, but in this
> case, it is detecting a particular situation that is prone to errors,
> but is not itself an actual error. The intent is to have a set of C++
> checks that give warnings about potentially problematic code. While
> these two are fairly simple, others will be more involved. I'm just
> trying to increase the amount of checking that is C++ specific. Adding
> these two doubles the number of C++ specific checkers.
These generally aren't the heuristics we apply when we decide whether to put a
warning in the compiler vs. in the static analyzer. Typically, we put
cheap-to-detect issues in the compiler under the control of an appropriate
warning flag. When a warning requires more involved flow- or path-sensitive
analysis, we put it in the static analyzer.
This kind of problem seems like a solid candidate for going into the compiler.
- Doug
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
