================
@@ -1179,25 +1167,24 @@ void
Sema::checkFortifiedBuiltinMemoryFunction(FunctionDecl *FD,
if (NewIndex >= TheCall->getNumArgs())
return std::nullopt;
return NewIndex;
- };
+ }
- auto ComputeExplicitObjectSizeArgument =
- [&](unsigned Index) -> std::optional<llvm::APSInt> {
+ std::optional<llvm::APSInt>
+ ComputeExplicitObjectSizeArgument(unsigned Index) {
std::optional<unsigned> IndexOptional = TranslateIndex(Index);
if (!IndexOptional)
return std::nullopt;
unsigned NewIndex = *IndexOptional;
Expr::EvalResult Result;
Expr *SizeArg = TheCall->getArg(NewIndex);
- if (!SizeArg->EvaluateAsInt(Result, getASTContext()))
+ if (!SizeArg->EvaluateAsInt(Result, S.getASTContext()))
return std::nullopt;
llvm::APSInt Integer = Result.Val.getInt();
Integer.setIsUnsigned(true);
----------------
jpjepko wrote:
Fair enough :smile:. `EvaluateAsInt` will do the underflow itself based on the
implicit cast expression in the AST, and because `size_t` is unsigned, the
integer returned from `Result.Val.getInt()` should already be unsigned. So
setting it as unsigned on the next line has no effect in this context, but I
suppose making such a thing explicit isn't a bad idea.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/183004
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
