alexshap added inline comments.
================
Comment at: test/Analysis/stack-async-leak.m:60
+ void (^b)(void) = ^void(void) {
+ *p = 1;
+ };
----------------
NoQ wrote:
> You may enjoy adding an extra note piece (as in D24278) to the offending
> statement within the block. It might be helpful if it's not obvious which
> block is being executed or which pointer points to the leaking variable.
>
> Also it might be a good idea to think about a visitor that would track the
> block pointer to highlight where it was initialized with a concrete block
> code.
>
> Though probably it's not super useful because we're most likely staying
> within a single function with this checker.
>
> By the way, do we warn (or want to warn) on returning a block from a
> function, when this block captures a local variable?
regarding tracking - yeah, i agree, that would be good, although i would prefer
to make progress incrementally and add this part later.
>By the way, do we warn (or want to warn) on returning a block from a function,
>when this >block captures a local variable?
good question - yeah, now we do
https://reviews.llvm.org/D39438
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
