NagyDonat wrote: > So I'm still mildly in favor of simply saying "uninitialized". It may or may > not be someone else's actively used memory but that's beyond the programmer's > control and they know it (hopefully). It would be somewhat dishonest to give > the user an impression that this checker has considered the object's bounds > before emitting a warning. Both the checker and the engine itself effectively > ignore allocation bounds for all intents and purposes.
I'm seconding this. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/126596 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
