NoQ added a comment. > Yes, indeed very poorly. A C++ operator call is either implemented as > CXXOperatorCall or CXXMethodCall randomly. In the former case the this > parameter is explicit at the beginning, in the latter case it is implicit.
We have methods on `CallEvent` to handle this, namely `getAdjustedParameterIndex()` and `getASTArgumentIndex()`. They were added in D49443 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D49443>. > But this is not the only problem with indices. I have no solution for the > following call (is it really a call?) resulting in an assertion because > overindexing in `nullability.mm`: > > Dummy *_Nonnull (^myblock)(void) = ^Dummy *_Nonnull(void) { > > > Even if I try to get the `FunctionDecl` it still says that it has `0` > parameters, exactly what `CallExpr` says, but we //have// a parameter here > with index of `0`. How can it be? How should I handle this strange case? I > only have very basic //Objective-C// knowledge. These are blocks. They are like lambdas, just different syntax. They aren't part of Objective-C; they're a non-standard extension to C supported by both gcc and clang. The line you quoted is not a call, it only defines a block and assigns it into a variable of block pointer type. Here's the full code of the test: 358 void testNilReturnWithBlock(Dummy *p) { 359 p = 0; 360 Dummy *_Nonnull (^myblock)(void) = ^Dummy *_Nonnull(void) { 361 return p; // TODO: We should warn in blocks. 362 }; 363 myblock(); 364 } The block is invoked on line 363. Parameter `p` of the surrounding function is accessible from the block because it was captured; it is not a parameter of the block itself. > As far as I know, you have more than 10 years experience in the Analyzer. I > work on the analyzer for less than 5 years, and not full time, because I also > create Tidy checkers sometimes, I also have our internal stuff (most of which > I would like to upstream). I started in mid-2014. I too am regularly distracted to stuff that isn't particularly educational about the analyzer. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D77229/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D77229 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
