[cfe-commits] [Patch][Review Request]Fix for PR7287

[Ted Kremenek]

Hi Jim,

I agree that VisitCallExpr() needs to handle explicit calls to operatorXX(), but for the regular cases we should handle that in a separate visitor callback.

Ted

On Nov 1, 2010, at 3:32 PM, Jim Goodnow II wrote:

> At 03:25 PM 11/1/2010, Ted Kremenek wrote:
> 
>> On Nov 1, 2010, at 2:45 PM, Jim Goodnow II wrote:
>> 
>> > Well, those calls would actually be MemberCallExpr's, so it wouldn't
>> > occur in VisitCallExpr. The problem is really just an artifact of
>> > CXXOperatorCalls being grouped together with Calls. Eventually, they
>> > will probably be separated and this check can go away.
>> 
>> Hi Jim,
>> 
>> Why don't we do the right fix now?  (i.e., do the refactoring you are suggesting).
>> 
>> Ted
> 
> 
> Well, Doug has a point. I hadn't seen that syntax before, but it does come through as a CallExpr and needs to be handled properly. My revised patch handles it. I'll look at the refactor as well.
> 
> - jim
>