parallaxe marked 4 inline comments as done.
parallaxe added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D23236#509013, @ahatanak wrote:
> +cfe-commits
>
> If this patch is applied, does clang issue a warning if a method marked
> "nonnull" returns a null value? I see a warning is issued for conditional
> expressions in the test case you've added, but I don't see a test case for a
> function returning just nil or 0.
>
> I was wondering whether the change made in this patch contradicts what's
> stated in r240146's commit log:
>
> "Note that we don't warn about nil returns from Objective-C methods,
>
> because it's common for Objective-C methods to mimic the nil-swallowing
> behavior of the receiver by checking ostensibly non-null parameters
> and returning nil from otherwise non-null methods in that
> case."
I'm not sure how this is meant. As far as I understand the commit-message you
quoted, it is related to methods that return nil when a precondition fails. A
test for this would be `doNotWarnWhenPreconditionIsViolatedInTopFunc` in
nullability_nullonly.mm, which is not affected by my patch.
On the other side, according to the test `testReturnsNilInNonnull` in
nullability_nullonly.mm
- (SomeClass * _Nonnull)testReturnsNilInNonnull {
SomeClass *local = nil;
return local; // expected-warning {{Null is returned from a method that is
expected to return a non-null value}}
}
it is expected to produce a warning, when a method marked as nonnull returns
nil while no precondition is violated.
So I would expect that the existing tests already proof that my patch didn't
produce unwanted side-effects.
Sorry in case that I'm missing your point here, maybe you can elaborate it a
bit more?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D23236
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
