Sirraide wrote: > One option would be simply ignore that - this warning applies to raw pointers > only, not even integers. It can always be expanded later, if we can think of > how.
Yeah, this is pretty much what I had in mind. We could hard-code some common standard-library types too (e.g. `std::unique_ptr`, `std::optional`); afaik there is precedent for doing this but I don’t recall if that was in the static analyser or not. Another option would be to add an attribute that you can use to indicate that it’s a bug if a type is used like this, but I don’t feel like this warrants an entire attribute... > I wouldn't get my hopes up, not until [forgetting a return > statement](https://godbolt.org/z/nKooafrGK) errors by default. Tell me about it... https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/156436 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
