lebedev.ri added a reviewer: NoQ. lebedev.ri added a comment. Herald added a subscriber: Charusso.
In D76229#1925371 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D76229#1925371>, @f00kat wrote: > In D76229#1925360 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D76229#1925360>, @lebedev.ri > wrote: > > > This seems to be already handled by clang static analyzer? > > (`clang-analyzer-cplusplus.PlacementNew`) > > > > <source>:19:5: warning: Storage provided to placement new is only 2 > > bytes, whereas the allocated type requires 8 bytes > > [clang-analyzer-cplusplus.PlacementNew] > > ::new (&s1) long; > > ^ > > <source>:19:5: note: Storage provided to placement new is only 2 bytes, > > whereas the allocated type requires 8 bytes > > <source>:64:3: warning: Storage provided to placement new is only 2 > > bytes, whereas the allocated type requires 8 bytes > > [clang-analyzer-cplusplus.PlacementNew] > > ::new (buffer3) long; > > ^ > > > > > > https://godbolt.org/z/9VX5WW > > > But it seems like not all of my tests pass on static analyzer? I have not really worked with static analyzer code, but assuming that those cases that are no longer diagnosed as compared to this clang-tidy checks *should* be diagnosed (i.e. diagnosing them isn't false-positive), then i'd think that static analyzer check simply needs some work? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D76229/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D76229 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
