================
@@ -296,12 +296,16 @@ static bool fillRanges(MemoryBuffer *Code,
}
if (!EmptyLengths)
Length = Lengths[I];
+ if (Length == 0) {
+ errs() << "error: length should be at least 1\n";
+ return true;
+ }
if (Offset + Length > CodeSize) {
errs() << "error: invalid length " << Length << ", offset + length ("
- << Offset + Length << ") is outside the file.\n";
+ << Offset + Length << ") is outside the file\n";
return true;
}
- Ranges.push_back(tooling::Range(Offset, Length));
+ Ranges.push_back(tooling::Range(Offset, Length - 1));
----------------
kadircet wrote:
hi folks, we're seeing some regressions that's possibly related to this change
(working on a repro right now). I am having a hard time following why this is
the right thing to do. `tooling::Range` and command line flags are both
(offset, length) pairs. `offset` is 0-based for both, and `length` is again
coming from the same domain for both representations (in bytes).
moreover, we're only performing this mapping here, and not just couple of lines
above (when we convert `--lines` to ranges.
I do agree that there's an off by one somewhere, but I think it's more likely
to be in
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/clang/lib/Format/AffectedRangeManager.cpp#L61-L71.
Logic in there accepts two ranges `[B1, E1)` and `[B2, E2)` as intersecting
when `E1==B2`, but those ranges are half open (as they're constructed from
`offset + length` pairs).
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/143302
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
