On Jul 14, 2011, at 12:16 PM, Kaelyn Uhrain wrote: > For clarification, which part of the restrictions I mentioned do you see as > an ommision in the logic that need to be mentioned in comments with the patch > to indicate they are intentional--given that Sema::CheckArrayAccess > explicitly only works with an Expr of ConstantArrayType and a second Expr > that must return true for isIntegerConstantExpr otherwise CheckArrayAccess > doesn't have the two values it needs to perform the check, and given there is > already a comment explaining the slight difference in acceptable values > depending on whether the index value is an array subscript or a > pointer-arithmetic offset?
I was thinking more of documenting design decisions. For example, documenting in the logic why "array + length" is okay and why "array + length + 1" is not. But you've already done this; so I think you're right that nothing more really needs to be done on that part. Thanks for your patience; I was gradually thinking it through. The only other issue: should this be controlled under a separate warning flag, at least initially so we can experiment with this new warning and see how noisy it is? E.g. "-Warray-bounds-pointer-arithmetic".
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
