shuaiwang added a comment. Yeah let's see what happens in the wild and decide whether we need further actions. In any case I think that deserves a separate diff. Is there other concerns about this diff?
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D50883#1230805, @JonasToth wrote: > Your point is valid, that the decision of what to analyze should be done > outside. My const-correctness check does analyze all versions of the > templated function, because it just matches on > `functionDecl(compoundStmt())`. > > Maybe we just need some experience with real world code. The > const-correctness thing is close to finish in its first version. Then we > can exercise its results. > > Am 11.09.2018 um 18:15 schrieb Shuai Wang via Phabricator: > > > I see, it's the conflicting results you're going after :) > > Good news is that we actually don't analyze all versions, we only analyze > > the version (instantiated or not) corresponding to the "scope" stmt passed > > into the constructor. Semantic-wise I feel this makes sense because if > > we're given an instantiated version we shouldn't bail out because nothing > > is type-dependent anymore in the instantiated version. > > Also I think conflicts won't happen much in practice, most (all?) checks > > naturally pass in the uninstantiated version, in order to pass in an > > instantiated version a check needs to: > > > > - Find an instantiation point > > - Match and extract the function decl from the callExpr > > - Extract function body compontStmt from the function decl at that point > > the check owner likely knows pretty well what they're doing and shouldn't > > be surprised that analyze results conflicts if they happen to also analyze > > an uninstantiated version. > > > > Repository: > > > > rCTE Clang Tools Extra > > > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D50883 Repository: rCTE Clang Tools Extra https://reviews.llvm.org/D50883 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
