mgehre marked 2 inline comments as done.
================
Comment at:
test/clang-tidy/cppcoreguidelines-pro-bounds-pointer-arithmetic.cpp:37
@@ +36,3 @@
+ q -= i;
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:5: warning: do not use pointer arithmetic
+ q -= ENUM_LITERAL;
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> I don't think this comment is "done" yet. I still don't know how this check
> is intended to handle code like that. Does it currently diagnose? Does it not
> diagnose? Should it diagnose?
I had added your code, see line 55 of this file.
It should diagnose, because an arithmetic operation (+) is used, which results
in a (possibly) changed pointer.
It does diagnose, as the CHECK-MESSAGE shows.
================
Comment at:
test/clang-tidy/cppcoreguidelines-pro-bounds-pointer-arithmetic.cpp:51
@@ +50,3 @@
+
+ i = p[1];
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:7: warning: do not use pointer arithmetic
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> How well does this handle code like:
> ```
> void f(int i[], size_t s) {
> i[s - 1] = 0;
> }
> ```
> Does it diagnose, and should it?
Good point, I'll ask at https://github.com/isocpp/CppCoreGuidelines/issues/299
http://reviews.llvm.org/D13311
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
