================
@@ -985,6 +985,20 @@ auto buildTransferMatchSwitch() {
isOptionalMemberCallWithNameMatcher(hasName("isNull")),
transferOptionalIsNullCall)
+ // NullableValue::makeValue, NullableValue::makeValueInplace
+ // Only NullableValue has these methods, but this
+ // will also pass for other types
+ .CaseOfCFGStmt<CXXMemberCallExpr>(
+ isOptionalMemberCallWithNameMatcher(
+ hasAnyName("makeValue", "makeValueInplace")),
+ [](const CXXMemberCallExpr *E, const MatchFinder::MatchResult &,
+ LatticeTransferState &State) {
+ if (RecordStorageLocation *Loc =
+ getImplicitObjectLocation(*E, State.Env)) {
+ setHasValue(*Loc, State.Env.getBoolLiteralValue(true),
State.Env);
+ }
+ })
+
----------------
vbvictor wrote:
I'd prefer 2nd option because we have more control over what method belong to
what class. Imagine this situation:
```cpp
struct optional1() {
hasNull(); // check that it has value but it's nullptr
isNull(); // check that it has no value inside
}
struct optional2() {
hasNull(); // check that it has no value inside
}
```
If we go with 1st option, we would write `NonStdNoValue: hasNull;isNull`, but
that would produce errors because `optional1::hasNull` doesn't actually check
for no value, `optional1::isNull` does.
To express intentional behavior, we need to write `NonStdNoValue:
optional2::hasNull;optional1::isNull`.
I don't think we need to worry too much about the length of the default value.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/144313
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
