Looks good to me! Committed as r215456. I also split out the VLASizeChecker-related tests into a separate test file (including the existing ones) in case we have any later improvements. Thanks. Daniel!
Jordan On Aug 11, 2014, at 9:08 , Daniel Fahlgren <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Jordan, > > On Mon, 2014-06-16 at 13:01 -0700, Jordan Rose wrote: >> Getting back to this late. Would it be better to use constraints to check >> this? >> >> if (!state->assume(/* size >= 0 */)) { /* error */ } > > Sorry for the late reply. Vacation and life somehow got in the way of > coding. > > Yes, that is be better. The old patch did not catch things like: > > static void bar(int x) > { > int vla[x]; > } > > void foo(int x) { > if (x < 0) > bar(x); > } > > Attached is an updated version of the patch with the above test case. > Since this is my first real encounter with constraints I'm sure things > can be done in a better way. Feedback is welcome. :) > > Best regards, > Daniel Fahlgren > <VLA.patch> _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
