hnrklssn wrote: > Thanks for the fix! > > I was wondering if the new code paths should actually return `true` not > `false`, but I think it makes sense that for a comparison like `"hello" + 6 > == "world"`, we say that the strings are _not_ potentially-overlapping but we > instead detect the case of comparing a past-the-end pointer to one complete > object against the start of another complete object.
That's an interesting thought. I tried it out real quick to see what the difference would be. Instead of `comparison against pointer '&"foo"[4]' that points past the end of a complete object has unspecified value`, we get `comparison of addresses of potentially overlapping literals has unspecified value`. I haven't investigated the code paths to see whether it's guaranteed that we always get that diagnostic, but I do think it's more useful with the diagnostic being specific about past-the-end being the issue. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/137078 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
