vsavchenko added inline comments.
================
Comment at:
clang/test/Analysis/std-c-library-functions-arg-constraints-notes.cpp:32
+ __buf_size_arg_constraint_concrete(buf); // \
+ // expected-note{{The size of the 0th arg should be equal to or less than
the value of 10}} \
+ // expected-warning{{}}
----------------
martong wrote:
> vsavchenko wrote:
> > Oof, I do understand that we are devs and enumerate things starting from 0.
> > But this is supposed to be human-readable and humans start counting from 1.
> I've been thinking a lot about this and I see your point. On the other hand,
> we report warnings to other developers/programmers who are all used to start
> the indexing from 0, they may find it odd to start from 1.
>
> Alas, the string `0th` makes it obvious that we are talking about the first
> argument, however the string `1st` is ambiguous, even if we start the
> indexing from 0 or from 1. In this sense, starting from 0 makes less
> confusion.
I know that we are talking to developers, but no developers say that this is a
0th argument. And IMO the vast majority of developers would think of the
argument at index 0 when they read '1st' because most of people are not
compiler engineers and don't think of the list of arguments as an array.
But that is all opinions after all. What is most important is that clang
already reports a ton of warnings pointing to a specific argument/parameter by
its ordinal number. Simply grep `DiagnosticsSemaKinds.td` for `ordinal` and
see the examples in tests. As you can guess, they all use ordinals starting
from **1st**.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D101060/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D101060
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
