================
@@ -11,6 +11,11 @@ struct S {
void h(const char*) __attribute__((nonnull(1))); // \
expected-error{{invalid for the implicit this argument}}
+
+ void i(this S* self, const char*) __attribute__((nonnull(1)));
+
+ void j(this S* self, const char*) __attribute__((nonnull(3))); // \
+ expected-error{{'nonnull' attribute parameter 1 is out of bounds}}
----------------
vvuksanovic wrote:
> That’s assuming we don’t have an off-by-one error in the index, which is what
> the test is for ;Þ
Ah, I thought you were talking about adding a second index to `nonnull`, not
changing the existing one.
Added the suggested test.
> I don’t think it makes sense to disallow `nonnull` for explicit object
> parameters; to my understanding, something like this would be valid, if a bit
> weird:
>
> ```c++
> struct S {
> void f(this int* x);
> operator int*() { return nullptr; }
> };
>
>
> void f() {
> S().f(); // Weird, but ok.
> }
> ```
Right, thanks!
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/165586
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
