steakhal added inline comments.
================
Comment at:
clang/include/clang/StaticAnalyzer/Core/PathSensitive/CallEvent.h:958
+
+ unsigned getNumArgs() const override { return getDecl()->getNumParams(); }
+
----------------
NoQ wrote:
> Charusso wrote:
> > `return getOriginExpr()->getNumArgs()`
> This wouldn't compile. `CXXDeleteExpr` is not a `CallExpr`.
>
> It sounds like there are currently [[
> http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/new/operator%20delete/ | five different
> `operator delete`s ]]:
> {F11474783}
>
> And, unlike `operator new`, there's no option to provide custom "placement"
> arguments.
>
> So i think the logic in this patch is correct but we should do some custom
> logic for all 5 cases in the `getArgExpr` method, where argument expressions
> for the extra arguments will have to be conjured out of thin air (or we might
> as well return null).
> It sounds like there are currently five different `operator delete`s:
I think it is even worse since C++17 and C++20 introduced a couple of others
like:
- overloads with `std::align_val_t` parameter (C++17)
- overloads with `std::destroying_delete_t` parameter (C++20) which I haven't
heard of yet :D
You can check it in the draft: http://eel.is/c++draft/new.delete
And of course at cppreference as well:
https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/memory/new/operator_delete
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D75430/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D75430
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
