nlewycky added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D31839#724551, @ahatanak wrote:
> OK, thanks for looking into it. Warnings for ObjCMessageExpr can probably be
> implemented in a separate patch.
>
> It looks like clang still doesn't issue overflow warnings when the called
> functions have a void return. Should we try to fix it in this patch too?
>
> void foo(int);
>
> void test0() {
> foo(4068 * 1024 * 1024); // no warnings
> }
>
That testcase and the ObjCMessageExpr can go together in another patch where we
fix visiting of non-literal-type expressions. This patch is really about
inconsistent visiting of the arguments of a CallExpr.
There's a problem with this patch, we sometimes revisit nodes leading to
exponential time. I've written a fix to that locally but it's not upstreamable
quality yet.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D31839
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
