beanz added a comment. In D130055#3663164 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D130055#3663164>, @jkorous wrote:
> It looks like there is a possibility that a free function, static method or a > method of another class (a `friend`?) should be `woot` for a specific > pointer/reference parameter. Oh! That's a fascinating idea I hadn't considered. As implemented I only applied the `woot`-iness of a function to it's `this` parameter. > In the same spirit as the above I think that `kaboom` should be applicable to > functions in general. I'd have to double check, but I'm pretty sure non-member functions get treated as `Use` in the analysis today, so they _should_ implicitly be `kaboom`. > BTW - if we generalize `woot` and `kaboom` - won't we get support for > built-in types as a side-effect and won't that give us C support as a > side-effect? I think generally we have support for built-in types through this analysis already. This just piggybacks off the existing support. > Last but not least - it would be really interesting to have the ability to > check and diagnose improper use of these attributes. This would be super cool! Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D130055/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D130055 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
