NoQ added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D41406#970985, @xazax.hun wrote:
> Do you have a plan for the new false negatives when `c++-allocator-inlining`
> is on? Should the user mark allocation functions with attributes?
Not immediately - the immediate plan is to simply believe that we'd either see
something reasonable inside the call (eg. `malloc()` or a concrete array), or
we'd rather not even try to understand what's going on and how to properly
release memory in this case (avoid false positives, which is also good). I
guess we shall see if it makes sense to track the allocated value anyway, even
in the inlined case, and in this case we'd need to work around tracking stuff
twice (eg. `operator new(size) { return malloc(size); }` would need to be
tracked as both new and malloc for the purposes of mismatched deallocator
check) or other unexpected issues (because `MallocChecker` has strong opinions
all over the place on how allocated values normally look like). We don't have
any annotations in `MallocChecker` yet, and i didn't think about adding support
for them or even see if there are existing useful annotations around.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D41406
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
