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

[Jim Goodnow II]

Yes, it seems like it should either have a name of 'operator==' for 
that case (which I'm sure breaks the identifier syntax rules causing 
much havoc) or be classed as a CXXOperatorCallExpr instead of a CallExpr.

At 04:50 PM 11/1/2010, Ted Kremenek wrote:
>That said, the unfortunate thing about this is that it means that 
>all checkers that implement VisitCallExpr() will need to do this 
>checking.  That seems really suboptimal.  It seems to me that only a 
>few checkers will care about operator methods.
>
>On Nov 1, 2010, at 4:46 PM, Ted Kremenek wrote:
>
> > 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
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cfe-commits mailing list
> > cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
>
>
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>Version: 9.0.864 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3231 - Release Date: 
>11/01/10 00:35:00