hfinkel added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D17993#371459, @chandlerc wrote:
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D17993#371454, @hfinkel wrote: > > > In http://reviews.llvm.org/D17993#370793, @chandlerc wrote: > > > > > If we're not going to fully implement "fdelete-null-pointer-checks" we > > > shouldn't claim to... I'm really worried about us accepting that flag and > > > not actually honoring it. > > > > > > However, I *do* think this should be guarded by a flag, and it should be > > > specific to the 'this' pointer. And I'm also sufficiently terrified of > > > this that I think the flag should be off to start with so that folks can > > > find out how bad this is really going to be... > > > > > > I agree with you, but I don't really understand why this particular use of > > nonnull is scary. Do you really think we have people calling member > > functions on null pointers on purpose and checking for a null this pointer > > in their code? > > > Yes, we saw an astonishing number of instances of this when turning on the > warning. > > I don't have any real sympathy for the pattern or principle of the code -- it > is *really* bad. But at the same time, I do have sympathy for the users of > Clang who often inherited that code and would have to make substantial plans > to fix all of it before this kind of thing could be rolled out. Interesting. Then, indeed, we at least need a flag. Not sure we need nonnull this disabled by default, however. http://reviews.llvm.org/D17993 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
