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

Ted Kremenek kremenek at apple.com
Mon Nov 1 17:51:00 PDT 2010

On Nov 1, 2010, at 5:28 PM, Douglas Gregor wrote:

> 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? 

Checkers are very different from the logic in Sema.  They only care about specific, domain-specific idioms.  The scope of things they care or need to think about is limited.  Why expand that beyond necessity?

For functions that monitor function calls (which is only a subset of them), they primarily care about monitoring for functions like 'lock()', 'unlock()', etc.  They don't need to think about everything.  For Checkers that care about monitoring all of these cases, we do have a Checker::VisitGenericCallExpr() that they can implement.

More information about the cfe-commits mailing list