martong added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/Analysis/inner-pointer.cpp:23
+
+char *data(std::string &c);
+
----------------
vsavchenko wrote:
> martong wrote:
> > Seems like all test are exercising with std::string, this looks like a
> > legacy in this Checker.
> > Still, I miss a bit at least one test for the other overloads of
> > `std::data`, maybe in a follow up patch?
> I can add it here, but what other test you suggest to add?
For example,
```
char a[20];
auto c = std::data(s);
consume(c);
```
Would this produce a warning?
Similarly to initializer list:
```
template <class E>
constexpr const E* data(std::initializer_list<E> il) noexcept
{
return il.begin();
}
int test() {
auto IL = {0,1,2};
const auto I = data(IL);
consume(I);
return 0;
}
```
================
Comment at: clang/test/Analysis/inner-pointer.cpp:378-392
+void func_addressof() {
+ const char *c;
+ std::string s;
+ c = s.c_str();
+ addressof(s);
+ consume(c); // no-warning
+}
----------------
vsavchenko wrote:
> martong wrote:
> > So these are the FP cases that you are trying to solve?
> > Would be nice to see more details about the bug report (rdar://73463300) if
> > that is not proprietary.
> ```
> std::optional<std::string> str = "example";
> char* dup = strndup(str->c_str(), str->size());
> ```
> `std::optional::operator->` uses `std::addressof` and the analyzer thinks
> that the pointer might get changed and raises the alarm.
> I decided not to replicate `std::optional` in tests, and get straight to the
> point.
Okay, thanks, makes sense.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D99260/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D99260
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
