danakj wrote: > > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/2ff43ce87e66d9324370e35ea6743ef57400c76e/clang/lib/Analysis/UnsafeBufferUsage.cpp#L1373-L1374 > > > > These assert that exactly one gadget matched. I think it's kinda worthwhile > > keeping the warnings independent too, so I don't see this as a bad thing. > > If we were to mark the span ctor as `[[clang::unsafe_buffer_usage]]` for > > instance, it the span-specific warning gives a better output still, and > > generating two warnings for the same piece of code is noisy. > > Hmm this isn't really what these assertions are about. They don't protect > against duplicate gadgets, they protect against duplicate `.bind()` tags > across gadgets. Because gadgets are connected by the `anyOf()` matcher (as > opposed to `eachOf()`), a single match result will always have exactly one > gadget, the first one in the list, even if they match the same statement. > > So I think you're right that there's a problem: if you have two gadgets match > the same statement, only one will be reported. So your solution is probably > necessary. We should also maybe do something about that, so that warning > gadgets weren't conflicting this way. But I don't think _this_ assertion > guards against that.
Ah yeah, okay, that makes sense. I did bump into the asserts while working on this, but not in the way that I thought. When I remove the `unless(HasTwoParamSpanCtorDecl)` I don't hit the asserts. > If this still doesn't sound right to you, can you include a test where the > assertion fails for you? No matter how ridiculous the test is. The machine is > complex enough to appreciate ridiculous tests. I think we want to get to the > bottom of this. It sounds right to me yeah, especially after testing it. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/91777 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
