On Jun 19, 2012, at 10:07 PM, Anna Zaks wrote: > Can we extend CallOrObjCMessage with the CXXNewExpr? I know you think > CallOrObjCMessage should be rewritten, but it's a much better solution than > copying a bunch of dense code including 4 original FIXMEs and still not > having the complete invalidation as the result. Also, what do we win from > adding the invalidation? All the false positives seemed to have moved into a > test which is XFAILED. If we don't win anything and it's too hard to reuse > CallOrObjCMessage, we could just not do any invalidation (you already have a > fixit notes for it).
The reason CallOrObjCMessage is hard to adapt for CXXNewExpr is because the first placement arg is the size being allocated, which doesn't have a corresponding expression. CallOrObjCMessage users tend to assume that they can always look at the type and/or source range of an argument value. I think I actually did hack this up in some of my CXXNewExpr work months ago---I'll look around on my personal hard drive and see what I've got---but I think I just sidestepped the problem by using the placement args as written as the list of arguments. This is a problem because then the arg exprs don't match up with the FunctionDecl being used. The case that this handles is that otherwise this code says 'x' and 'y' are uninitialized: int x; new (&x) int; int *y = (int*)malloc(sizeof(int)); new (y) int; > Also, I think XFAIL stands for expected fail; I am not sure if it should be > used for a TODO list (might be wrong though..). You could just leave the > tests where they were (new.cpp) and add a note. This is a good point, particularly because if any of the fail-tests start passing, we won't know about it. Better to use expected-warning on the incorrect results and note that they should some day be fixed. Thanks. Jordan _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
