================
@@ -582,6 +582,15 @@ static void visitFunctionCallArguments(IndirectLocalPath
&Path, Expr *Call,
// Temp().ptr; // Here ptr might not dangle.
if (isa<MemberExpr>(Arg->IgnoreImpCasts()))
return;
+ // Avoid false positives when the object is constructed from a conditional
+ // operator argument. A common case is:
+ // // 'ptr' might not be owned by the Owner object.
+ // std::string_view s = cond() ? Owner().ptr : sv;
----------------
Xazax-hun wrote:
I am a bit confused to be honest. Is there any other contexts where
`Owner().ptr` is problematic? I'd expect our analysis to behave the same for a
subexpression like that regardless the context. So I am surprised we need to
insert special logic for the ternary operator.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/120233
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
