================
@@ -0,0 +1,113 @@
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=c++20 -Wunsafe-buffer-usage \
+// RUN: -fsafe-buffer-usage-suggestions -verify %s
+
+using size_t = __typeof(sizeof(int));
+
+namespace std {
+ class type_info;
+ class bad_cast;
+ class bad_typeid;
+
+ template <typename T> class span {
+
+ private:
+ T *elements;
+ size_t size_;
+
+ public:
+ span(T *, size_t){}
+
+ constexpr T* data() const noexcept {
+ return elements;
+ }
+
+ constexpr size_t size() const noexcept {
+ return size_;
+ }
+
+ };
+}
+
+struct A {
+ [[clang::unsafe_buffer_usage]]
+ int *ptr;
+
+ size_t sz;
+};
+
+struct B {
+ A a;
+
+ [[clang::unsafe_buffer_usage]]
+ int buf[];
+};
+
+union Union {
+ [[clang::unsafe_buffer_usage]]
+ int *ptr1;
+
+ int ptr2;
+};
+
+struct C {
+ Union ptr;
+};
+
+struct D {
+ [[clang::unsafe_buffer_usage]]
+ int *ptr, *ptr2;
+
+ [[clang::unsafe_buffer_usage]]
+ int buf[10];
+
+ size_t sz;
+
+};
+
+void foo(int *ptr);
+
+void foo_safe(std::span<int> sp);
+
+void test_attribute_union(C c) {
+ int *p = c.ptr.ptr1; //expected-warning{{field ptr1 prone to unsafe buffer
manipulation}}
+
+ // TODO: Warn here about the field
----------------
malavikasamak wrote:
This could be a potentially be added to this patch. The question is if the
attribute is added to a member of a Union field, should we warn when other
fields of the said union are accessed. I think we probably should, as it is
referring to the same memory. Wanted to know if it's something we are
interested to do as part of this patch or a future patch.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/101585
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
