================ @@ -0,0 +1,50 @@ +.. title:: clang-tidy - cppcoreguidelines-pro-bounds-avoid-unchecked-container-accesses + +cppcoreguidelines-pro-bounds-avoid-unchecked-container-accesses +=============================================================== + +Flags calls to ``operator[]`` in STL containers and suggests replacing it with +safe alternatives. + +For example, both + +.. code-block:: c++ + + std::vector<int> a; + int b = a[4]; + +and + +.. code-block:: c++ + + std::unique_ptr<vector> a; + int b = a[0]; + +will generate a warning. + +STL containers with well-defined behavior for ``operator[]`` are excluded from this +check. + +This check enforces part of the `SL.con.3 +<https://isocpp.github.io/CppCoreGuidelines/CppCoreGuidelines#slcon3-avoid-bounds-errors>` +guideline and is part of the `Bounds Safety (Bounds 4) +<https://isocpp.github.io/CppCoreGuidelines/CppCoreGuidelines#Pro-bounds-arrayindex>` +profile from the C++ Core Guidelines. + +Options +------- + +.. option:: ExcludeClasses + + Semicolon-delimited list of class names that should additionally be + excluded from this check. Default is empty string. + +.. option:: FixMode + + Determines what fixes are suggested. Either `None` (default), `at` (use + ``a.at(index)`` if a fitting function exists) or `function` (use a ---------------- paulhdk wrote:
Good catch! Personally, I prefer lowercase spelling for all three options. Writing uppercase after the colon when setting the option via `cppcoreguidelines-pro-bounds-avoid-unchecked-container-accesses.FixMode: <option_name>` feels unnatural to me. Feel free to re-open if there's a particular reason why uppercase makes more sense here. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/95220 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
