On Oct 1, 2012, at 11:03 , Anna Zaks <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> +
>>> +bool IvarInvalidationChecker::MethodCrawler::isZero(const Expr *E) const {
>>> + E = peel(E);
>>> + if (const IntegerLiteral *IL = dyn_cast<IntegerLiteral>(E))
>>> + return IL->getValue() == 0;
>>> +
>>> + if (const CastExpr *ICE = dyn_cast<CastExpr>(E))
>>> + return ICE->getCastKind() == CK_NullToPointer;
>>> +
>>> + return false;
>>> +}
>>
>> The more robust form of this is Expr::isNullPointerConstant.
>>
>
> isNullPointerConstant seems to do type checking, determining which type of
> null pointer we have. Why is it more robust to use here (all the typechecking
> has been done already)?
It catches a few other types of null pointer constants, like C++11 'nullptr'.
It does do a small bit of extra work but reusing it ensures that we won't ever
have to manually update this code.
>>> +
>>> + // Check if we call the 'invalidation' routine on the ivar.
>>> + if (Receiver) {
>>> + InvalidationMethod = MD;
>>> + check(Receiver->IgnoreParenCasts());
>>> + InvalidationMethod = 0;
>>
>> Passing state around like this does not make me happy.
>
> It does not make me happy either.:) It does not make me more happy to pass
> this as a parameter through a bunch of calls.
>
>> In particular, [[a foo] bar] will not work because the check() method calls
>> back to VisitObjCMessageExpr.
>
> It does not.
Oops, I can't read. In my defense the method names are a little confusing. Okay.
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
