steakhal added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/Analysis/ArrayDelete.cpp:85-88
+ Derived *d3 = new DoubleDerived[10];
+ Base *b3 = d3; // expected-note{{Conversion from derived to base happened
here}}
+ delete[] b3; // expected-warning{{Deleting an array of polymorphic objects
is undefined}}
+ // expected-note@-1{{Deleting an array of polymorphic objects is
undefined}}
----------------
donat.nagy wrote:
> steakhal wrote:
> > Hmm, the static type of `d3` doesn't tell us much about how it refers to an
> > object of type `DoubleDerived`.
> > To me, it would make sense to have multiple `Conversion from derived to
> > base happened here`, even telling us what static type it converted to what
> > other static type in the message.
> > And it should add a new visitor of the same kind tracking the castee.
> >
> > ```
> > Derived *d3 = new DoubleDerived[10]; // note: `DoubleDerived` -> `Derived`
> > here
> > Base *b3 = d3; // note: `Derived` -> `Base` here
> > delete[] b3; // warn: Deleting `Derived` objects as `Base` objects.
> > ```
> > WDYT @donat.nagy ?
> I agree that it would be good to be good to mention the class names in the
> message.
Do you also agree that we should have all steps where such a conversion
happened?
Notice the 2 `note:` markers in my example. @donat.nagy
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D158156/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D158156
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
