On Aug 22, 2012, at 11:04 PM, Douglas Gregor wrote: > > On Aug 19, 2012, at 3:23 PM, John McCall <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Aug 8, 2012, at 9:16 AM, Douglas Gregor wrote: >>> In both cases, why do we restrict this warning to ivars of Objective-C >>> pointer type? Direct ivar access to an 'int' ivar is still direct access to >>> an ivar, when one should presumably go through a property or method. >> >> Doug, it is pretty clear from the restrictions that the original design of >> this warning >> was to tell users when they might be directly accessing an ivar in a way that >> broke memory safety. Your reviews have completely repurposed the warning >> flag >> to instead warn about all places that could have been property accesses. > > You're right. I was thinking of this warning in terms of KVO and current > recommendations that one go through the property rather than the ivar, but > (historically) this warning would have simply been about memory safety in a > non-GC, non-ARC world. > >> That >> might be abstractly okay, but does it satisfy the intent of the feature >> request? > > > Hrm. My interpretation tends to push this warning close to the point of being > stylistic, because ubiquitous use of property accesses is a recommendation > that isn't necessarily universally agreed upon. In that light, I think I've > asked for a warning that is going to produce too many false positives to be > generally useful. We'd probably be better off dialing it back to the original > intent. Sorry, Fariborz!
No sweat. Will undo. - Fariborz > > - Doug _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
