Aaron, you are correct. There is not currently a test for that. I can either add one to this patch or ensure that one is in the next patch.
DeLesely: That was the assumption that David and I came up with. This will produce more errors, but should catch more bugs. There could be a problem, however, when a method does change internal state, but not state that is relevant to the "consumed/unconsumed" status of the object. This method couldn't be marked constant, and would therefor transition the object out of its known state. - Chris On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Delesley Hutchins <[email protected]>wrote: > > > LGTM. > > > ================ > Comment at: lib/Analysis/Consumed.cpp:446 > @@ -419,1 +445,3 @@ > + if (!MethodDecl->isConst()) > + StateMap->setState(PState.getVar(), consumed::CS_Unknown); > } > ---------------- > Is the assumption here that calling a non-const method puts the object > into an unknown state? That's a correct, conservative judgement. > > However, an alternative is to assume that unmarked methods do not change > the object state, which might be more user-friendly in the common case. > > > http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D1468 >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
