NoQ added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D48027#1207721, @rnkovacs wrote:
> I guess it is highly unlikely for someone to write namespaces like that, and
> if they do, I think they deserve to have them treated as a `std::string`.
Yup. On the other hand, if we specify our method as `{"basic_string", "c_str"}`
and they make a `namespace basic_string { const char *c_str(); }`, we are
pretty likely to //crash// when we try to obtain this-value for the call that
isn't a method. This is still not a big deal because it's still highly
unlikely, but we've seen crash reports of this sort, and the easier our spec
is, the more likely it becomes that somebody has a different thing with the
same name. For example, if we want to model iterators and we specify
`{"begin"}` without specifying the base class (so that all sorts of containers
were covered), we still want to specify that we're looking for a method call
and not for a global function call.
So i believe that one of the important remaining problems with
`CallDescription` is to teach it to discriminate between global functions and
methods. We can do it in a number of ways:
1. Make a special sub-class for CallDescription depending on the sort of the
function (too verbose),
2. Tag all items in the list as "record" vs. "namespace" (too many tags),
3. Dunno, tons of other boring and verbose approaches,
4. Change our PreCall/PostCall callbacks to callback templates that let allow
the user subscribe to specific sub-classes of `CallEvent` similarly to how he
can subscribe to different kinds of statements in
PreStmt<Class>/PostStmt<Class>, and then the user doesn't need to write any
code to check it dynamically.
Repository:
rC Clang
https://reviews.llvm.org/D48027
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
