On Jan 23, 2014, at 13:15 , Richard Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 9:20 AM, Jordan Rose <[email protected]> wrote: > This mostly looks good to me. One comment, though: > > + !RetValExp->isValueDependent() && > > The returns_nonnull check doesn't bother to check if it's value-dependent > first. Is that necessary? Should that be folded in somewhere else? > > Yes, that is necessary. If your CheckNonNullExpr is supposed to > conservatively return false if the expression isn't known to be null, it > should return false on any value-dependent expression. Then we should probably sink the check there, since it's not currently doing that for the returns_nonnull attribute. Jordan
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
