NoQ accepted this revision.
NoQ added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
LGTM!
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Analysis/UnsafeBufferUsage.cpp:219
+ arraySubscriptExpr(hasBase(ignoringParenImpCasts(hasPointerType())),
+ unless(hasIndex(integerLiteral(equals(0)))))
.bind("arraySubscr"));
----------------
xazax.hun wrote:
> Isn't it the case you still want to cover zero indices but as a safe gadget
> to make sure fixits can be emitted?
> Having to add another gadget for this makes me think maybe categorizing the
> safety of gadgets upfront is not the right model.
So according to the discussion in D140062 it actually *is* the right model to
decide safety up front, and then maybe even have some duplication, because the
safe gadget has to provide a lot more context in the matcher in order for us to
emit any fix at all. So the fixable gadget wouldn't be "same thing but with
different index". It'd be "a completely different thing with completely
arbitrary index".
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D138321/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D138321
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
