Szelethus added a comment. Cool!
================ Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/MoveChecker.cpp:528 ArrayRef<const MemRegion *> ExplicitRegions, ArrayRef<const MemRegion *> Regions, const LocationContext *LCtx, const CallEvent *Call) const { ---------------- This isn't specific to this revision, but I find the parameter name `Regions` way too vague. Maybe `ImplicitRegions`? ================ Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/MoveChecker.cpp:540-542 + // Explicit regions are the regions passed into the call directly, but + // not all of them end up being invalidated. The ones that do appear in + // the Regions array as well. ---------------- Really? Then I guess this needs to be updated in `CheckerDocumentation.cpp`: ``` /// \param ExplicitRegions The regions explicitly requested for invalidation. /// For a function call, this would be the arguments. For a bind, this /// would be the region being bound to. ``` To me, this clearly indicates that the elements of `ExplicitRegions` will be invalidated. Does "requested for" really just mean "requested for potential"? Since this happens //before// any invalidation, it could easily be interpreted as "invalidated after the end of the callback". Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D55289/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D55289 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits