msebor added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/Sema/unbounded-array-bounds.c:101
+ char tail[1]; // addr16-note {{declared here}} addr32-note {{declared here}}
+} fam1;
+
----------------
msebor wrote:
> There's a difference between the sizes of `fam1` and `fam` that makes
> accesses to the four leading elements of `fam1.tail` strictly in bounds,
> while no access to either `fam.tail` or `fam0.tail` is (`sizeof fam` is the
> same as `sizeof int` while `sizeof fam1` is equal to `sizeof (int[2])` on
> common targets). It would be helpful to capture that difference in the
> tests, both for the warning and for `__builtin_object_size`.
>
> There should also be a difference between accessing elements of an object of
> an initialized struct with a flexible array member (i.e., one whose size is
> known) and those of an object that's only declared but that's defined in some
> other translation unit. Since the size of the object is determined by its
> initializer, it should be reflected in `__builtin_object_size` and accesses
> to it checked by `-Warray-bounds`. The size of the latter object is unknown
> it must be assumed to be `PTRDIFF_MAX - sizeof (int) - 1`. It would also be
> helpful to add tests for these cases.
>
> As far as I can see, none of these cases seems to be handled quite right on
> trunk. For example, the size of `s` below should be 8 but Clang evaluates
> `__builtin_object_size(&s, N)` to 4, without diagnosing any past-the-end
> accesses to `s.a`:
> ```
> struct S {
> int n;
> char a[];
> } s = { 1, { 2, 3, 4, 5 } };
> ```
I opened [[ https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/57860 | PR #57860 ]] to
better show what I mean.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D133108/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D133108
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
