NoQ added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/test/SemaCXX/warn-unsafe-buffer-usage.cpp:10-13 +void foo(...); + +void * bar(void); +char * baz(void); ---------------- ziqingluo-90 wrote: > steakhal wrote: > > NoQ wrote: > > > ziqingluo-90 wrote: > > > > steakhal wrote: > > > > > I would expect this test file to grow quite a bit. > > > > > As such, I think we should have more self-descriptive names for these > > > > > functions. > > > > > > > > > > I'm also curious what's the purpose of `foo()`in the examples. > > > > Thanks for the comment. I agree that they should have better names or > > > > at least explaining comments. > > > > > > > > > I'm also curious what's the purpose of `foo()`in the examples. > > > > > > > > I make all testing expressions arguments of `foo` so that I do not have > > > > to create statements to use these expressions while avoiding irrelevant > > > > warnings. > > > That's pretty cool but please note that when `foo()` is declared this > > > way, it becomes a "C-style variadic function" - a very exotic construct > > > that you don't normally see in code (the only practical example is the > > > `printf`/`scanf` family of functions). So it may be good that we cover > > > this exotic case from the start, but it may also be really bad that we > > > don't cover the *basic* case. > > > > > > C++ offers a different way to declare variadic functions: //variadic > > > templates// (https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/parameter_pack). > > > These are less valuable to test because they expand to AST that's very > > > similar to the basic case, but that also allows you to cover the basic > > > case better. > > > > > > Or you can always make yourself happy with a few overloads that cover all > > > your needs, it's not like we're worried about code duplication in tests: > > > ```lang=c++ > > > void foo(int); > > > void foo(int, int); > > > void foo(int, int, int); > > > void foo(int, int, int, int); > > > void foo(int, int, int, int, int); > > > void foo(int, int, int, int, int, int); > > > ``` > > IMO its fine. I would probably call it `sink()` though. Ive used the same > > construct for the same reason in CSA tests with this name. > I don't quite get what "basic case" refers to. Could you explain it to me a > little more? By "basic case" I mean the ordinary, non-variadic function call with predefined set of arguments in the prototype. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D137379/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D137379 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
