NoQ edited subscribers, added: NoQ; removed: dergachev.a.
NoQ added inline comments.
================
Comment at: test/Analysis/nullability_nullonly.mm:103
void testObjCARCExplicitZeroInitialization() {
- TestObject * _Nonnull explicitlyZeroInitialized = nil; // expected-warning
{{nil assigned to a pointer which is expected to have non-null value}}
+ TestObject * _Nonnull explicitlyZeroInitialized = nil; // expected-warning
{{nil assigned to a pointer which is expected to have non-null value}}
expected-warning{{implicitly casting a null constant to non-nullable pointer
type 'TestObject * _Nonnull __strong'}}
}
----------------
jordan_rose wrote:
> @dergachev.a, what do you think here? Is it okay that the analyzer diagnoses
> this in addition to the new warning?
We're usually trying to avoid this when we notice it, but there are many cases
where we didn't notice it because both warnings and the analyzer are becoming
better independently. I guess you could just give us a heads up with a bug
report if you don't want to bother with this.
In this case i think it should be easy to fix though, because the analyzer
already has `static isARCNilInitializedLocal()` that suppresses implicit null
initializers, we could teach it to suppress all null initializers instead.
Repository:
rC Clang
https://reviews.llvm.org/D22391
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
