NoQ added a comment. In D35068#1440830 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D35068#1440830>, @koldaniel wrote:
> In D35068#1438498 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D35068#1438498>, @NoQ wrote: > > > There seems to be a crash in this code. @koldaniel, would you like to take > > a look? https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=41185 > > > Hi, > > True, it is a faulty scenario, my question is what should be the way forward? > I think in case of built-in functions there should be no warning, since they > differ from the deprecated ones which come from the old standard. The only > purpose of the assert was to help development and maintenance (if a new > function had been added, it should be decided if it is deprecated or unsafe). > Returning instead of asserting would solve the problem. On many platforms such standard C functions are implemented as macros that expand to the respective builtins. I believe there should be no difference in behavior between the normal function and the builtin function. Cf. `test/Analysis/bstring.c`. Repository: rL LLVM CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D35068/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D35068 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
