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

Douglas Gregor dgregor at apple.com
Mon Nov 1 17:28:31 PDT 2010

On Nov 1, 2010, at 5:19 PM, Ted Kremenek wrote:

> I disagree.  Most checkers don't care about such functions.

Those checkers are making assumptions that don't hold in C++, where not all names are simple identifiers. The rest of the front end has been updated to cope with DeclarationName and it hasn't ever been a problem. Why now? 

>  Forcing them to always think about cases that they mostly don't care about seems suboptimal and verbose.

... but we don't generally change our AST because two checkers find a NULL check to be inconvenient, so what's your concrete proposal here?

	- Doug

> Sent from my iPad
> On Nov 1, 2010, at 5:02 PM, Douglas Gregor <dgregor at apple.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 1, 2010, at 4:50 PM, 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.
>> Checkers that look at the name of the function called need to be aware that not all names are simple identifiers. The seems completely reasonable to me.
>> 	- Doug

More information about the cfe-commits mailing list