Took away default NULL initialization.
OK to commit?
================
Comment at: include/clang/StaticAnalyzer/Core/CheckerManager.h:377
@@ -374,3 +376,3 @@
PointerEscapeKind Kind,
- bool IsConst = false);
+ RegionAndSymHandlingTraits *HTraits = NULL);
----------------
Anna Zaks wrote:
> Антон Ярцев wrote:
> > Anna Zaks wrote:
> > > When does it make sense for traits to be missing? (Why the NULL
> > > initialization? Also, I think it should be '0', not "NULL")
> > Currently pointer escape on bind do not deal with traits ( ExprEngine.cpp,
> > processPointerEscapedOnBind() ), NULL initialization just allows to leave
> > the code of processPointerEscapedOnBind() unchanged. This is the only
> > reason for NULL initialization. Do you think NULL initialization should be
> > removed?
> >
> > Changed "NULL" to "0". Searched LLVM code standard for "0" vs "NULL", found
> > nothing. What is wrong with "NULL"? :)
> >
> Is that expected to change? Maybe we should just pass NULL at that one call
> site, instead of using default initialization.
>
> There are probably threads discussing which one to use "NULL" or "0" and I
> assume we came to a decision to use '0'. I can see arguments on both sides,
> one is more expressive, the other one is shorter and cannot be redefined...
Done!
http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D1486
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
