================
@@ -4073,6 +4221,51 @@ LValue CodeGenFunction::EmitArraySubscriptExpr(const
ArraySubscriptExpr *E,
ArrayLV = EmitLValue(Array);
auto *Idx = EmitIdxAfterBase(/*Promote*/true);
+ if (SanOpts.has(SanitizerKind::ArrayBounds)) {
+ // If the array being accessed has a "counted_by" attribute, generate
+ // bounds checking code. The "count" field is at the top level of the
+ // struct or in an anonymous struct, that's also at the top level. Future
+ // expansions may allow the "count" to reside at any place in the struct,
+ // but the value of "counted_by" will be a "simple" path to the count,
+ // i.e. "a.b.count", so we shouldn't need the full force of EmitLValue or
+ // similar to emit the correct GEP.
+ const LangOptions::StrictFlexArraysLevelKind StrictFlexArraysLevel =
+ getLangOpts().getStrictFlexArraysLevel();
+
+ if (const auto *ME = dyn_cast<MemberExpr>(Array);
+ ME &&
+ ME->isFlexibleArrayMemberLike(getContext(), StrictFlexArraysLevel) &&
+ ME->getMemberDecl()->hasAttr<CountedByAttr>()) {
+ RecordDecl *RD = ME->getMemberDecl()
+ ->getDeclContext()
+ ->getOuterLexicalRecordContext();
----------------
bwendling wrote:
Basically, yes. If you have something like:
```
void foo(struct B *b) {
bar(b->member[12]);`
}
```
Then there won't be a check, because we won't be able to "see" the `count` in
`struct A`. I know it's restrictive, but it's the best we can do given that
`someB` may not be allocated within an enclosing `struct A`.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/73730
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
