On Sep 13, 2013, at 9:17 , Anna Zaks <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sep 13, 2013, at 9:06 AM, Jordan Rose <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On Sep 13, 2013, at 9:03 , Anna Zaks <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Karthik, >>> >>> Why do we need the FIXME? It should set ill be possible to report the >>> issue, no? You'd need to associate the warning with the location where the >>> destructor was called. >> >> I asked for this but I think I got it wrong...an arbitrary destructor call >> won't necessarily have an associated statement, > > We still should report the error even if the statement is not there. As far > as I can see, the only downside is that we will not highlight the range. > Use-after-free reports are most valuable to users and it does not really > matter if we highlight the range or not.
Ah, good point. > >> but of course the one for a 'delete' should. I'm not sure we currently store >> enough information to handle this, though. >> > > I am asking to investigate this before putting in the FIXME. On which > callback checkUseAfterFree is called with a NULL statement? Can we still > report the error? If not yet included, please include the test case that > tests this. A destructor call does not have an associated statement; right now that includes destructors that come from 'delete'. _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
