aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/AST/Decl.cpp:2994
+///
+/// \param ConsiderWrapperFunctions If we should consider wrapper functions as
+/// their wrapped builtins. This shouldn't be done in general, but its useful
in
----------------
If we should -> If true, we should
================
Comment at: clang/lib/AST/Decl.cpp:2995
+/// \param ConsiderWrapperFunctions If we should consider wrapper functions as
+/// their wrapped builtins. This shouldn't be done in general, but its useful
in
+/// Sema to diagnose calls to wrappers based on their semantics.
----------------
its -> it's
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaChecking.cpp:319
+ // If the parameter has a pass_object_size attribute, then we should use
+ // it's (potentially) more strict checking mode. Otherwise, conservatively
+ // assume type 0.
----------------
it's -> its
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaChecking.cpp:367
+ DiagID = diag::warn_memcpy_chk_overflow;
+ if (!evaluateObjectSize(TheCall->getNumArgs()-1) ||
+ !evaluateSizeArg(TheCall->getNumArgs()-2))
----------------
george.burgess.iv wrote:
> nit: All of these cases (and the two lambdas above) look super similar. Might
> it be clearer to just set `SizeIndex` and `ObjectIndex` variables from here,
> and actually `evaluate` them before `UsedSize.ule(ComputedSize)`?
>
> If not, I'm OK with this as-is.
Formatting looks off here -- run the patch through clang-format?
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaChecking.cpp:388
+ return;
+ // Whether these functions overflow depend on the runtime strlen of the
+ // string, not just the buffer size, so emitting the "always overflow"
----------------
depend -> depends
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaChecking.cpp:423
+ StringRef FunctionName = getASTContext().BuiltinInfo.getName(BuiltinID);
+ if (DiagID == diag::warn_memcpy_chk_overflow) {
+ // __builtin___memcpy_chk -> memcpy
----------------
Why don't we want to do this for the new fortify diagnostics?
Repository:
rC Clang
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D58797/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D58797
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
