zaks.anna added a comment.
> Again I'm not sure this is worth checking for, based on the assumption that a
> reasonable const method won't modify the relevant object. What do people
> think?
These are heuristics. I think dealing with this case should not be a
pre-requisite for the patch. We can see how much this is an issue in practice
through evaluation on existing codebases as well as getting user feedback once
this lands.
================
Comment at: test/Analysis/PR21606.cpp:2
@@ +1,3 @@
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -analyze -analyzer-checker=core
+// PR21606
+
----------------
Can this be moved into some other test file?
You can have the PR name in a comment or a method name.
================
Comment at: test/Analysis/const-method-call.cpp:72
@@ +71,3 @@
+
+void checkThatConstMethodDoesInvalidateInheritedPointedAtMemory() {
+ int x = 1;
----------------
Maybe we should add a test case where the const method is inherited?
http://reviews.llvm.org/D13099
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
