jkorous added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Analysis/UnsafeBufferUsage.cpp:162
+ InnerMatcher)),
+ unless(callee(functionDecl(hasAttr(attr::UnsafeBufferUsage)))));
+ auto CastOperandMatcher =
----------------
ziqingluo-90 wrote:
> jkorous wrote:
> > I am just wondering how does the callee matcher work in situation with
> > multiple re-declarations 🤔
> >
> > Something like this:
> > ```
> > void foo(int* ptr);
> > [[clang::unsafe_buffer_usage]] void foo(int* ptr);
> > void foo(int* ptr);
> >
> > void bar(int* ptr) {
> > foo(ptr);
> > }
> > ```
> I think we are fine. According to the doc of `FunctionDecl`:
> ```
> /// Represents a function declaration or definition.
> ///
> /// Since a given function can be declared several times in a program,
> /// there may be several FunctionDecls that correspond to that
> /// function. Only one of those FunctionDecls will be found when
> /// traversing the list of declarations in the context of the
> /// FunctionDecl (e.g., the translation unit); this FunctionDecl
> /// contains all of the information known about the function. Other,
> /// previous declarations of the function are available via the
> /// getPreviousDecl() chain.
> ```
I see! Sound like we should be fine indeed and the test seems to confirm.
Thank you!
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Analysis/UnsafeBufferUsage.cpp:508
+ hasUnaryOperand(arraySubscriptExpr(
+ hasBase(ignoringParenImpCasts(declRefExpr())))))
+ .bind(UPCAddressofArraySubscriptTag)))));
----------------
ziqingluo-90 wrote:
> jkorous wrote:
> > I am wondering what will happen in the weird corner-case of `&5[ptr]` - I
> > feel the Fix-It we produce would be incorrect.
> >
> > Here's a suggestion - we could use `hasLHS` instead of `hasBase` here and
> > add a FIXME that when we find the time we should also properly support the
> > corner-case. That would be a pretty low-priority though - we definitely
> > have more important patterns to support first.
> >
> > WDYT?
> >
> I'm not sure if I understand your concern. For `&5[ptr]`, we will generate a
> fix-it `ptr.data() + 5` in cases `ptr` is assigned a `span` strategy. It is
> same as the case of `&ptr[5]`.
Oh, my bad! I assumed (AKA didn't check) that we're just replacing the parts of
the code around the DRE and index.
You're right. Please ignore me :)
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D143128/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D143128
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
