NoQ added a comment.
It's definitely a bug-prone scenario. I can totally see people stuffing
whatever happens to be more readily available in the code into the API without
thinking too much about the pros and cons. The difference between `CallExpr`
and `CallEvent` is large in general but with respect to this API it's very
subtle. I can easily imagine people missing it even when they know the
difference between `CallExpr` and `CallEvent` in general. So I think it's worth
attracting attention to.
Also technically a new overload *is* a new API. It just happens to have the
same name as the old one.
================
Comment at:
clang/include/clang/StaticAnalyzer/Core/PathSensitive/CallDescription.h:102-103
+ /// Returns true if the CallEvent is a call to a function that matches
+ /// the CallDescription.
+ ///
----------------
================
Comment at:
clang/include/clang/StaticAnalyzer/Core/PathSensitive/CallDescription.h:182-183
+
+ /// ALWAYS prefer lookup with a CallEvent, when available. See comments above
+ /// CallDescription::matchesImprecise.
+ LLVM_NODISCARD const T *lookupImprecise(const CallExpr &Call) const {
----------------
In doxygen these comments will be below :)
I think this should be a full comment so that people didn't have to click.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D119004/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D119004
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
