================
@@ -1140,6 +1143,152 @@ static bool ProcessFormatStringLiteral(const Expr
*FormatExpr,
return false;
}
+static std::optional<int> getPathMaxValue(const ASTContext &Ctx) {
+ if (Ctx.getTargetInfo().getTriple().isOSGlibc())
+ return {4096};
----------------
ojhunt wrote:
You can use PP.getMacroDefinition for PATH_MAX, giving you macro info, from
there you can examine the macro definition, which will presumably be a single
token that is an integer literal, which you can parse out. If PATH_MAX is not
defined then you definitionally know the developer cannot be doing the correct
thing so you can warn.
Rather than caching that you might choose to ask for getMacroDefinition at the
location of the expression - it limits your ability to cache but as it's just a
couple of hash lookups it should be completely fine.
If PATH_MAX is not a single token numeric macro you could emit a warning and
someone will file a bug that allows us to see what other patterns we need to
support.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/177286
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
