<div dir="ltr">Yes, please, commit.<div><br></div><div>Anna.</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Антон Ярцев <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:anton.yartsev@gmail.com" target="_blank">anton.yartsev@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
Took away default NULL initialization.<br>
OK to commit?<br>
<div class="im"><br>
<br>
================<br>
Comment at: include/clang/StaticAnalyzer/Core/CheckerManager.h:377<br>
@@ -374,3 +376,3 @@<br>
PointerEscapeKind Kind,<br>
- bool IsConst = false);<br>
+ RegionAndSymHandlingTraits *HTraits = NULL);<br>
<br>
----------------<br>
</div><div class="im">Anna Zaks wrote:<br>
> Антон Ярцев wrote:<br>
> > Anna Zaks wrote:<br>
> > > When does it make sense for traits to be missing? (Why the NULL initialization? Also, I think it should be '0', not "NULL")<br>
> > Currently pointer escape on bind do not deal with traits ( ExprEngine.cpp, processPointerEscapedOnBind() ), NULL initialization just allows to leave the code of processPointerEscapedOnBind() unchanged. This is the only reason for NULL initialization. Do you think NULL initialization should be removed?<br>
> ><br>
> > Changed "NULL" to "0". Searched LLVM code standard for "0" vs "NULL", found nothing. What is wrong with "NULL"? :)<br>
> ><br>
> Is that expected to change? Maybe we should just pass NULL at that one call site, instead of using default initialization.<br>
><br>
> There are probably threads discussing which one to use "NULL" or "0" and I assume we came to a decision to use '0'. I can see arguments on both sides, one is more expressive, the other one is shorter and cannot be redefined...<br>
</div>Done!<br>
<br>
<br>
<a href="http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D1486" target="_blank">http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D1486</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>