dcoughlin added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D26768#619222, @malcolm.parsons wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D26768#618651, @dcoughlin wrote: > > > The definite false positives were cases where the programmer seemed aware > > of the semantics of virtual calls during construction/destruction and had > > each subclass explicitly call its own version of the virtual method in > > question. > > > How is this avoiding the check for a qualifier on the call? > > if (CME->getQualifier()) > callIsNonVirtual = true; > They didn't use the qualified version. Rather, each class had duplication of the same logic calling the virtual method its individual constructor/destructor. In the cases I examined either the virtual method didn't call super (most common pattern) or it did and was idempotent if called multiple times. >> The likely false positives were cases where there was no subclass of the >> constructed class that overrode the method in question. > > I'd like to be told about these so that the class can be marked final. I agree, but this produces too many alarms to be on by default in the analyzer. I put the check in it in the 'optin' package so individual projects can decide whether they want to enforce this rule or not. Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D26768 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
