ziqingluo-90 added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/SemaCXX/warn-unsafe-buffer-usage.cpp:16
+void testArraySubscripts(int *p, int **pp) {
+ foo(p[0], // expected-warning{{unchecked operation on raw buffer
in expression}}
+ pp[0][0], // expected-warning2{{unchecked operation on raw
buffer in expression}}
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> One test case I'd like to see is: `sizeof(p[0])` -- should code in an
> unevaluated context be warned?
I think they should NOT be warned. We haven't addressed the issue of
unevaluated context in our patches. I'm adding a test for code in unevaluated
context so that we don't forget about it later.
================
Comment at: clang/test/SemaCXX/warn-unsafe-buffer-usage.cpp:43
+}
+
+void testArraySubscriptsWithAuto(int *p, int **pp) {
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> Can you also add tests for function declarations like:
> ```
> void foo(int not_really_an_array[10]) { ... }
>
> template <int N>
> void bar(int (&actually_an_array)[N]) { ... }
>
> // Using a dependent type but we know it's a pointer.
> template <typename Ty>
> void baz(Ty *ptr) { ... }
>
> // Using a dependent type where we have no idea if it's a pointer.
> template <typename Ty>
> void quux(Ty ptr) { ... }
> ```
>
Thanks for suggesting these test cases. They have been added in one of the
following patches (https://reviews.llvm.org/D138318). That patch improves the
matchers to recognize these cases.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D137379/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D137379
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
