[cfe-dev] CXXForRangeStmtClass in Static Analyzer

[Ted Kremenek]

On Sep 22, 2011, at 5:03 PM, Jim Goodnow II wrote:

> Just curious. Is there any reason that CXXForRangeStmtClass isn't treated the same as ForStmtClass in ExprEngine?

They shouldn't be treated the same because they aren't the same semantically.  In the AST their common ancestor is Stmt; they need to be handled separately.

> It shouldn't appear explicitly in the CFG since it is already handled by the semantic engine.

The CFG is suppose to represent all control-flow, including this statement.  What do you mean by the "semantic engine"?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20110922/07c67cc2/attachment.html>