lebedev.ri marked 2 inline comments as done. lebedev.ri added a comment.
================ Comment at: clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst:238 -- ... +- * ``pointer-overflow`` check was extended added to catch the cases where + a non-zero offset being applied, either to a ``nullptr``, or the result ---------------- rsmith wrote: > Reusing this group seems a little surprising, since the new checks don't seem > to have anything to do with overflow. Is the general idea that this warning > identifies places where pointer artihmetic leaves the complete object (where, > for now, we only catch the case where it wraps around the address space or > leaves / reaches a hypothetical size-0 object at the null address)? As it can be seen in the patch history i initially added this as a new group, but then merged it back into this group as per @vsk request in D67122#inline-602602 : > Separately, the proposed 'nullptr-and-nonzero-offset' check is interesting > only/exactly when the existing 'pointer-overflow' check is interesting, and > vice versa. So I don't see the need to make them distinct. So yes, the idea is that in the retrospect, the `pointer-overflow` name might be just too specific, but this is the same UB, so there is no point in fragmenting it. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D67122/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D67122 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
