balazske wrote: > > This new check does nearly the same thing > > I feel a bit at unease reading this. Why can't we improve the existing check, > instead of duplicating it?
The reason was that this check is not path-sensitive and these should be put into `clang-tidy`. Really the original check could be improved to handle dynamic types or type of memory region (but not the syntax-based check), then both may have valid use cases. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/153428 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
