[PATCH] [Review request][analyzer]Information about special handling for a particular region/symbol.

[Anna Zaks]

Yes, please, commit.

Anna.


On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Антон Ярцев <anton.yartsev at gmail.com>wrote:

>
>   Took away default NULL initialization.
>   OK to commit?
>
>
> ================
> Comment at: include/clang/StaticAnalyzer/Core/CheckerManager.h:377
> @@ -374,3 +376,3 @@
>                                PointerEscapeKind Kind,
> -                              bool IsConst = false);
> +                              RegionAndSymHandlingTraits *HTraits = NULL);
>
> ----------------
> Anna Zaks wrote:
> > Антон Ярцев wrote:
> > > Anna Zaks wrote:
> > > > When does it make sense for traits to be missing? (Why the NULL
> initialization? Also, I think it should be '0', not "NULL")
> > > 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?
> > >
> > > Changed "NULL" to "0". Searched LLVM code standard for "0" vs "NULL",
> found nothing. What is wrong with "NULL"? :)
> > >
> > Is that expected to change? Maybe we should just pass NULL at that one
> call site, instead of using default initialization.
> >
> > 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...
> Done!
>
>
> http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D1486
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20130924/d9f14f79/attachment.html>