Yes, please, commit. Anna.
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Антон Ярцев <[email protected]>wrote: > > 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
