On Jun 19, 2012, at 22:16 , Jordan Rose <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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. Nope, I don't see it in my branch, so I guess I realized it wouldn't work as intended. _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
