================
@@ -71,20 +71,20 @@ void
ContainerDataPointerCheck::registerMatchers(MatchFinder *Finder) {
const auto Zero = integerLiteral(equals(0));
- const auto SubscriptOperator = callee(cxxMethodDecl(hasName("operator[]")));
-
- Finder->addMatcher(
+ const auto AddressOfMatcher =
unaryOperator(
unless(isExpansionInSystemHeader()), hasOperatorName("&"),
- hasUnaryOperand(expr(
- anyOf(cxxOperatorCallExpr(SubscriptOperator, argumentCountIs(2),
- hasArgument(0, ContainerExpr),
- hasArgument(1, Zero)),
- cxxMemberCallExpr(SubscriptOperator, on(ContainerExpr),
- argumentCountIs(1), hasArgument(0,
Zero)),
- arraySubscriptExpr(hasLHS(ContainerExpr), hasRHS(Zero))))))
- .bind(AddressOfName),
- this);
+ hasUnaryOperand(ignoringParenImpCasts(expr(anyOf(
+ cxxOperatorCallExpr(
+ hasOverloadedOperatorName("[]"), argumentCountIs(2),
+ hasArgument(0, ContainerExpr), hasArgument(1, Zero)),
+ cxxMemberCallExpr(callee(cxxMethodDecl(hasName("operator[]"))),
+ on(ContainerExpr), argumentCountIs(1),
+ hasArgument(0, Zero)),
+ arraySubscriptExpr(hasLHS(ContainerExpr), hasRHS(Zero)))))))
+ .bind(AddressOfName);
+
+ Finder->addMatcher(traverse(TK_AsIs, AddressOfMatcher), this);
----------------
vbvictor wrote:
Thank you for detailed description! Your English is good enough to understand
everything:)
So based on the feedback, I think we should drop support for `template
unique_ptr<T>` case with `TK_AsIs` because it may introduce the following
problem:
Consider 2 specializations, one with `MyArray` which doesn't have `data()`
member:
```cpp
template <typename T>
void u(std::unique_ptr<T> p) {
f(&(*p)[0]); // warning because of 'std::vector<int>'
}
template void u<std::vector<int>>(std::unique_ptr<std::vector<int>>);
template void u<MyArray>(std::unique_ptr<MyArray>); // don't have `.data()`
```
So the check will fire for `std::vector` but we can't actually change `[0]` to
`data()` because our other type `MyArray` will give compilation error because
it doesn't have `data()` member.
This is I think why `TK_IgnoreUnlessSpelledInSource` was used in the first
place: to avoid such false-positives.
I guess we can not just revert to previous version and LGTM
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/165636
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
