njames93 wrote: @5chmidti I decided to run this version of the check on llvm and clang https://gist.github.com/njames93/6f8863573972cb07c388ac19e8a20467
Seems like most of the warnings detected are when we are deliberately exceeding the bounds of a range when we know its a slice of a bigger range. Some of them are potentially cases where code could be refactored to better express it's intent, other instances already have comments to explain why we are exceeding the bounds There were also some cases where classes had begin/end pairs that didn't return iterators, instead [just integral types](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/llvm/lib/DWARFLinker/Parallel/DWARFLinkerCompileUnit.cpp#L682). These cases could be silenced by changing the check to ensure we aren't looking for integral types, but I feel that's such an unlikely case that there's no need to worry about it https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/99917 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
