Discookie marked 8 inline comments as done.
Discookie added a comment.
Fixed the formatting issues as well.
================
Comment at: clang/docs/analyzer/checkers.rst:1787-1804
+.. _alpha-cplusplus-ArrayDelete:
+
+alpha.cplusplus.ArrayDelete (C++)
+""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
+Reports destructions of arrays of polymorphic objects that are destructed as
their base class.
+
+.. code-block:: cpp
----------------
steakhal wrote:
> I think you should probably mention `EXP51-CPP CERT rule` somehow here.
Added a link to the CERT rules, similar to how others do it, thanks!
================
Comment at: clang/docs/analyzer/checkers.rst:1793-1803
+.. code-block:: cpp
+
+ Base *create() {
+ Base *x = new Derived[10]; // note: conversion from derived to base
+ // happened here
+ return x;
+ }
----------------
steakhal wrote:
> Make sure in the example the `create` is related (e.g. called/used).
> Also, refrain from using `sink` in the docs. It's usually used in the context
> of taint analysis.
Changed the example - should I change the DeleteWithNonVirtualDtor example as
well? That has the same issues as you said here.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D158156/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D158156
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
