================
@@ -296,12 +296,16 @@ static bool fillRanges(MemoryBuffer *Code,
}
if (!EmptyLengths)
Length = Lengths[I];
+ if (Length == 0) {
+ errs() << "error: length should be at least 1\n";
+ return true;
+ }
if (Offset + Length > CodeSize) {
errs() << "error: invalid length " << Length << ", offset + length ("
- << Offset + Length << ") is outside the file.\n";
+ << Offset + Length << ") is outside the file\n";
return true;
}
- Ranges.push_back(tooling::Range(Offset, Length));
+ Ranges.push_back(tooling::Range(Offset, Length - 1));
----------------
owenca wrote:
I really don't understand the rant. I didn't touch the off-by-1 bug (if it's
indeed a bug) in `AffectedRangeManager.cpp` precisely because it would impact
libFormat, which has been like this since its
[inception](f79351157959adde9a65d99075590a9db613a77b) 12+ years ago, and all
range tests in FormatTests have been based on this semantics. If you (or anyone
else) want to address it now, please open an issue and submit a pull request.
> hi folks, we're seeing some regressions that's possibly related to this
> change (working on a repro right now).
I'll look into this as soon as you have a repro.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/143302
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
