From 44e214b9337f300b1ba802f7279aa9af2abb2546 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Mathias Vorreiter Pedersen Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2023 13:47:09 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] C++: Stick to the pointer vs. indirection terminology. --- .../codeql-language-guides/advanced-dataflow-scenarios-cpp.rst | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/docs/codeql/codeql-language-guides/advanced-dataflow-scenarios-cpp.rst b/docs/codeql/codeql-language-guides/advanced-dataflow-scenarios-cpp.rst index 2939fb61991..44431a91e0b 100644 --- a/docs/codeql/codeql-language-guides/advanced-dataflow-scenarios-cpp.rst +++ b/docs/codeql/codeql-language-guides/advanced-dataflow-scenarios-cpp.rst @@ -187,7 +187,7 @@ Notice how the ``isSource`` and ``isSink`` are as expected: we're looking for fl In a real query the ``isAdditionalFlowStep`` step would be restricted in various ways to make sure that it doesn't add too much flow (since flow from a field qualifier to the field access in general will generate a lot of spurious flow). For example, one could restrict ``fa`` to be a field access that targets a particular field, or a field access of a field that's defined in a certain ``struct`` type. -We have an important choice here: Should the relationship between ``n2`` and ``fa`` be implemented using ``asExpr`` or ``asIndirectExpr``? +We have an important choice here: Should ``n2`` be the node corresponding to the pointer value of ``fa`` or the indirection of ``fa`` (i.e., what ``fa`` points to)? .. _using-asIndirectExpr: