MTC added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D42300#982187, @NoQ wrote:
> My intuition suggests that this checker shouldn't be path-sensitive; our > path-sensitive analysis does very little to help you with this particular > checker, and you might end up with a much easier and more reliable checker if > you turn it into a simple AST visitor or an AST matcher. Just a heads up. This is a very useful suggestion, many thanks, Noq! Path-sensitive is really a bit too heavy for this checker. Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D42300 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
