NoQ planned changes to this revision.
NoQ added a comment.
This is all wrong. While `RetainCountChecker` is more function-local than, say,
`MallocChecker`, we still can't say for sure that it is the bottom frame's
function (or block) that should be owning the object in this case. Ideally it
NoQ updated this revision to Diff 113102.
NoQ marked an inline comment as done.
NoQ added a comment.
Avoid creating a new `RefVal` kind.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D36750#843427, @dcoughlin wrote:
> > By the way, plist-based tests in retain-release.m are disabled since
> > r163536 (~2012),
dcoughlin added a comment.
I forgot to say this looks like a nice usability improvement!
https://reviews.llvm.org/D36750
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
dcoughlin added a comment.
> By the way, plist-based tests in retain-release.m are disabled since r163536
> (~2012), and need to be updated. It's trivial to re-enable them but annoying
> to maintain - would we prefer to re-enable or delete them or replace with
> -analyzer-output=text tests?
NoQ created this revision.
Herald added a subscriber: xazax.hun.
RetainCountChecker's warning message "`Incorrect decrement of the reference
count of an object that is not owned at this point by the caller`" does not
explicitly mention the caller, which may be confusing when there is a nested
