[PATCH] D151192: [clang-tidy] have bugprone-unchecked-optional-access check boost::optional usage

[Giel van Schijndel via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

muggenhor created this revision.
Herald added subscribers: carlosgalvezp, xazax.hun.
Herald added a reviewer: NoQ.
Herald added a project: All.
muggenhor requested review of this revision.
Herald added a project: clang.
Herald added a subscriber: cfe-commits.

Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

https://reviews.llvm.org/D151192

Files:
  clang/lib/Analysis/FlowSensitive/Models/UncheckedOptionalAccessModel.cpp


Index: clang/lib/Analysis/FlowSensitive/Models/UncheckedOptionalAccessModel.cpp
===
--- clang/lib/Analysis/FlowSensitive/Models/UncheckedOptionalAccessModel.cpp
+++ clang/lib/Analysis/FlowSensitive/Models/UncheckedOptionalAccessModel.cpp
@@ -50,7 +50,8 @@
 
   if (RD.getName() == "optional") {
 if (const auto *N = dyn_cast_or_null(RD.getDeclContext()))
-  return N->isStdNamespace() || isTopLevelNamespaceWithName(*N, "absl");
+  return N->isStdNamespace() || isTopLevelNamespaceWithName(*N, "absl") ||
+ isTopLevelNamespaceWithName(*N, "boost");
 return false;
   }
 


Index: clang/lib/Analysis/FlowSensitive/Models/UncheckedOptionalAccessModel.cpp
===
--- clang/lib/Analysis/FlowSensitive/Models/UncheckedOptionalAccessModel.cpp
+++ clang/lib/Analysis/FlowSensitive/Models/UncheckedOptionalAccessModel.cpp
@@ -50,7 +50,8 @@
 
   if (RD.getName() == "optional") {
 if (const auto *N = dyn_cast_or_null(RD.getDeclContext()))
-  return N->isStdNamespace() || isTopLevelNamespaceWithName(*N, "absl");
+  return N->isStdNamespace() || isTopLevelNamespaceWithName(*N, "absl") ||
+ isTopLevelNamespaceWithName(*N, "boost");
 return false;
   }
 
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[PATCH] D151192: [clang-tidy] have bugprone-unchecked-optional-access check boost::optional usage

[Giel van Schijndel via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

muggenhor added a comment.

Sure. Looking at the test I'm unsure though, are the `optional` implementations 
in there stripped copies of the real implementations? Or just a minimal 
implementation that fits the basic optional interface in the given namespace?


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D151192/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D151192

___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[PATCH] D151192: [clang-tidy] have bugprone-unchecked-optional-access check boost::optional usage

[Giel van Schijndel via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

muggenhor added a comment.

FYI: I've added a set of tests. But in the process discovered there's at least 
one assumption that doesn't hold for boost::optional. So I'll have to adjust 
the implementation for that. That's a bit more involved change, so will take 
some time.

(Specifically the assumption is that converting constructors/assignment 
operators are templates themselves: `assert(F.getTemplateSpecializationArgs() 
!= nullptr);` in `valueOrConversionHasValue`).


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D151192/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D151192

___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits