On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 02:36:01PM -0700, Bruno Cardoso Lopes wrote: > Hi Joerg, > > > Given that bzero is pretty much non-standard at this point, I strongly > > dislike the approach of checking only the function name. > > Thanks for the feedback. bzero it's widely used though, I think it's a > usability win to perform a diagnostic here, despite bzero being > non-standard.
Oh, I don't disagree that it is useful. Some projects still have a ridiculous amount of non-standard bzero and bcmp invocations. > > Is there any additional reason why you dislike it or additional checks > you suggest? IIUC, Sema::CheckMemaccessArguments already checks if the > number of arguments is the same and if they are indeed what they're > supposed to be. It checks the number of arguments, but that's about it. It doesn't for example check that the first argument is a pointer. > > If deprecation is the main issue here, shouldn't clang emit warnings > to mention 'bzero' deprecation then? It's not up to clang decide what the runtime environment provides or deprecates. That said, bzero is no longer even part of SUSv4. Joerg _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
