On Aug 17, 2012, at 7:59 PM, Jordan Rose wrote: > On Aug 17, 2012, at 19:15 , Anna Zaks <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Aug 17, 2012, at 5:30 PM, Jordan Rose wrote: >> >>> Modified: cfe/trunk/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/ExprEngine.cpp >>> URL: >>> http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/ExprEngine.cpp?rev=162156&r1=162155&r2=162156&view=diff >>> ============================================================================== >>> --- cfe/trunk/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/ExprEngine.cpp (original) >>> +++ cfe/trunk/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/ExprEngine.cpp Fri Aug 17 19:30:20 >>> 2012 >>> @@ -889,7 +889,7 @@ >>> case Stmt::ObjCAtThrowStmtClass: { >>> // FIXME: This is not complete. We basically treat @throw as >>> // an abort. >>> - Bldr.generateNode(S, Pred, Pred->getState()); >>> + Bldr.generateNode(S, Pred, Pred->getState(), /*IsSink=*/true); >> Please remove the C style comment. >> You can mention that we are generating a sink in a comment or better yet add >> another API to the node builder spelling out what we do: >> "Bldr.generateSink" > > This is a common way to annotate otherwise cryptic parameters in Clang, > though admittedly most of the uses in the analyzer specifically were > introduced by me. I don't understand why it's an issue, at least right now. > (I agree that in this case a "generateSink" method would be a little clearer.)
FWIW, I generally find myself wanting to use binary enums for most of these things eventually. That would be nicer if clang were using C++11, of course. John. _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
