================
@@ -4022,8 +4169,36 @@ LValue CodeGenFunction::EmitArraySubscriptExpr(const
ArraySubscriptExpr *E,
ArrayLV = EmitArraySubscriptExpr(ASE, /*Accessed*/ true);
else
ArrayLV = EmitLValue(Array);
+
auto *Idx = EmitIdxAfterBase(/*Promote*/true);
+ if (SanOpts.has(SanitizerKind::ArrayBounds)) {
----------------
rjmccall wrote:
Well, like I said, I don't think there's a reason to use *different* rules for
flexible array members one way or the other. But that's what this patch seems
to be doing.
How did you end up going down the rabbit hole of writing all the new code for
FAMs here? If you were writing comprehensive tests for FAMs and finding that
the substructure cases didn't work, I could believe that the real problem is
that the common infrastructure doesn't really support that yet. If that's the
case, then yeah, I think the right path forward is to just worry about the
cases that the common infrastructure supports, and we should make a point of
going back to the design stage and trying to decide whether the current
generality makes any sense. A feature we can't actually implement doesn't do
anyone any good.
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
