(apologies for top-posting; I'm on vacation and don't have my usual email setup)
Sounds interesting, but I'm having difficulty imagining exactly what you have in mind. Can you post one or more concrete examples of buggy code that would be caught by such a warning? Why wouldn't it be caught by C++'s syntax-based ownership support? Is there a PR in bugzilla for this idea? Thanks Dave On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 9:24 AM Benjamin Priour <priour...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi David, > > > Lately I've been working on adding a new state machine to keep track of > ownership transfers > > and misuses, e.g. to warn about use-after-move, partial or shallow copy/move. > > I'm trying to stay abstracted from heap allocated regions, and to rather work > with "resources", > > so that the state machine could be easily further extended. > > However, the whole concern of ownership is really C++-like, and most of the > checks would require > > things unheard of in vanilla C, such as copy/move operators, ctors & dtors ... > > > Using those constructs, it is really doable to guess ownership of resources, > whereas without them it becomes > > much more hazardous. > > So, should we make this new sm -adroitly called sm-ownership- C++-only ? > > > Doing so would allow the sm to reuse code from under cp/*, thus it'd reduce > duplicating code and would > > likely lead to less false positives in C++ -more precise function checks-, > though it would make any future C-support more tedious. > > It's also going against the current flow of porting what's already done for C > to C++. > > > Best, > > Benjamin.
