logan-5 marked an inline comment as done.
logan-5 added inline comments.
================
Comment at:
clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/checkers/bugprone-unintended-adl.cpp:202
+void macro_test(T t) {
+#define MACRO(x) find_if(x, x, x)
+
----------------
Quuxplusone wrote:
> logan-5 wrote:
> > EricWF wrote:
> > > Arguably this is *exactly* the kind of code we want to diagnose.
> > >
> > > The call in the macro either,
> > > * Is a "customization point" and should be whitelisted. Or,
> > > * It resolves the same in expansion (and can be qualified), Or,
> > > * It is a bug.
> > >
> > > You mentioned false positives in things like `assert`. Can you provide
> > > examples?
> > Fair enough. Disabling the check for macros does seem short sighted on
> > closer thought.
> >
> > When I run the check over LLVM in debug, `assert` expands to
> > `(__builtin_expect(!(e), 0) ? __assert_rtn(__func__, __FILE__, __LINE__,
> > #e) : (void)0)`. If the assert() is inside a function template, the check
> > claims that `unqualified call to '__assert_rtn' may be resolved through
> > ADL`. Inspecting the AST, this seems to be due to the fact that `__func__`
> > has dependent type. I suppose `__func__` could be special cased to be
> > ignored, or all uglified names, or something?
> Ouch, is that because `__func__` is an array of char with dependent length?
> ```
> template<class T>
> void foo() {
> char buf[sizeof(T)];
> memset(buf, '\0', sizeof buf);
> }
> ```
> Unqualified call to `memset`, where one of the arguments has dependent type
> `char[sizeof(T)]` — does that trigger the diagnostic?
Yep. So, I suppose the check should not trigger for expressions of
`DependentSizedArrayType` of `char`? Or of any built-in type, really?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D72282/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D72282
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
