[clang-tools-extra] Enforce SL.con.3: Add check to replace operator[] with at() (PR #90043)

PBHDK wrote: > Yes, you can just submit new PR, reference this one. Done! Here it is: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/95220 https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90043 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org

[clang-tools-extra] Enforce SL.con.3: Add check to replace operator[] with at() (PR #90043)

carlosgalvezp wrote: > I don't think it is a good solution. Can you elaborate? As I wrote above, the C++ Core Guidelines do not require using `at()`. Therefore the check would be doing something different than what the guidelines require. The reason they don't require it is that there's

[clang-tools-extra] Enforce SL.con.3: Add check to replace operator[] with at() (PR #90043)

HerrCai0907 wrote: > To be clear and reiterate my previous comment: this check should NOT require > users to use at(). That behavior should be opt-in. It should only warn about > using operator[]. It's up to the users to figure out what the best > replacement is. I don't think it is a good

[clang-tools-extra] Enforce SL.con.3: Add check to replace operator[] with at() (PR #90043)

carlosgalvezp wrote: To be clear and reiterate my previous comment: this check should NOT require users to use at(). That behavior should be opt-in. It should only warn about using operator[]. It's up to the users to figure out what the best replacement is.

[clang-tools-extra] Enforce SL.con.3: Add check to replace operator[] with at() (PR #90043)

https://github.com/HerrCai0907 requested changes to this pull request. `at` and `operator[]` in `std::map` have different meanings. `operator[]` will insert value if key does not exist but `at` won't. Please limit this check only for index containers instead of key-value containers.

[clang-tools-extra] Enforce SL.con.3: Add check to replace operator[] with at() (PR #90043)

PiotrZSL wrote: Yes, you can just submit new PR, reference this one. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90043 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[clang-tools-extra] Enforce SL.con.3: Add check to replace operator[] with at() (PR #90043)

PBHDK wrote: > Check if you can commit to sebwolf-de:avoid-bounds-error-check Unfortunately, we can't. We do not have access to Sebastian's LLVM fork. Since Sebastian is out of office right now - this is one of the reasons we're involved - would you be ok with us submitting a new PR with our

[clang-tools-extra] Enforce SL.con.3: Add check to replace operator[] with at() (PR #90043)

PiotrZSL wrote: Check if you can commit to sebwolf-de:avoid-bounds-error-check https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90043 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[clang-tools-extra] Enforce SL.con.3: Add check to replace operator[] with at() (PR #90043)

PBHDK wrote: > > > I am adding @leunam99 and @PBHDK to the PR, who will contribute in the > > > next few weeks. > > > > > > Since we cannot push to this PR, we will be submitting a new PR with > > @sebwolf-de's + our work, correct, @EugeneZelenko, @PiotrZSL, @HerrCai0907? > > Could you

[clang-tools-extra] Enforce SL.con.3: Add check to replace operator[] with at() (PR #90043)

EugeneZelenko wrote: > > I am adding @leunam99 and @PBHDK to the PR, who will contribute in the next > > few weeks. > > Since we cannot push to this PR, we will be submitting a new PR with > @sebwolf-de's + our work, correct, @EugeneZelenko, @PiotrZSL, @HerrCai0907? Could you please resolve

[clang-tools-extra] Enforce SL.con.3: Add check to replace operator[] with at() (PR #90043)

@@ -0,0 +1,66 @@ +namespace std { + template + struct array { +T operator[](unsigned i) { + return T{1}; +} +T at(unsigned i) { + return T{1}; +} + }; + + template + struct unique_ptr { +T operator[](unsigned i) { + return T{1}; +} +

[clang-tools-extra] Enforce SL.con.3: Add check to replace operator[] with at() (PR #90043)

@@ -0,0 +1,81 @@ +//===--- AvoidBoundsErrorsCheck.cpp - clang-tidy --===// +// +// Part of the LLVM Project, under the Apache License v2.0 with LLVM Exceptions. +// See https://llvm.org/LICENSE.txt for license information. +// SPDX-License-Identifier:

[clang-tools-extra] Enforce SL.con.3: Add check to replace operator[] with at() (PR #90043)

PBHDK wrote: > I am adding @leunam99 and @PBHDK to the PR, who will contribute in the next > few weeks. Since we cannot push to this PR, we will be submitting a new PR with @sebwolf-de's + our work, correct, @EugeneZelenko, @PiotrZSL, @HerrCai0907?

[clang-tools-extra] Enforce SL.con.3: Add check to replace operator[] with at() (PR #90043)

https://github.com/sebwolf-de updated https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90043 >From 8eb5863305e8f9a1311a540faf35f24fc6f55c6c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Sebastian Wolf Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 16:16:35 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 1/3] Enforce SL.con.3: Add check to replace operator[] with

[clang-tools-extra] Enforce SL.con.3: Add check to replace operator[] with at() (PR #90043)

@@ -0,0 +1,81 @@ +//===--- AvoidBoundsErrorsCheck.cpp - clang-tidy --===// +// +// Part of the LLVM Project, under the Apache License v2.0 with LLVM Exceptions. +// See https://llvm.org/LICENSE.txt for license information. +// SPDX-License-Identifier:

[clang-tools-extra] Enforce SL.con.3: Add check to replace operator[] with at() (PR #90043)

@@ -0,0 +1,66 @@ +namespace std { + template + struct array { +T operator[](unsigned i) { + return T{1}; +} +T at(unsigned i) { + return T{1}; +} + }; + + template + struct unique_ptr { +T operator[](unsigned i) { + return T{1}; +} +

[clang-tools-extra] Enforce SL.con.3: Add check to replace operator[] with at() (PR #90043)

@@ -57,6 +58,8 @@ namespace cppcoreguidelines { class CppCoreGuidelinesModule : public ClangTidyModule { public: void addCheckFactories(ClangTidyCheckFactories ) override { +CheckFactories.registerCheck( +"cppcoreguidelines-avoid-bounds-errors");

[clang-tools-extra] Enforce SL.con.3: Add check to replace operator[] with at() (PR #90043)

@@ -0,0 +1,81 @@ +//===--- AvoidBoundsErrorsCheck.cpp - clang-tidy --===// +// +// Part of the LLVM Project, under the Apache License v2.0 with LLVM Exceptions. +// See https://llvm.org/LICENSE.txt for license information. +// SPDX-License-Identifier:

[clang-tools-extra] Enforce SL.con.3: Add check to replace operator[] with at() (PR #90043)

@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@ +.. title:: clang-tidy - cppcoreguidelines-avoid-bounds-errors + +cppcoreguidelines-avoid-bounds-errors += + +This check enforces the `SL.con.3

[clang-tools-extra] Enforce SL.con.3: Add check to replace operator[] with at() (PR #90043)

@@ -0,0 +1,81 @@ +//===--- AvoidBoundsErrorsCheck.cpp - clang-tidy --===// +// +// Part of the LLVM Project, under the Apache License v2.0 with LLVM Exceptions. +// See https://llvm.org/LICENSE.txt for license information. +// SPDX-License-Identifier:

[clang-tools-extra] Enforce SL.con.3: Add check to replace operator[] with at() (PR #90043)

@@ -0,0 +1,81 @@ +//===--- AvoidBoundsErrorsCheck.cpp - clang-tidy --===// +// +// Part of the LLVM Project, under the Apache License v2.0 with LLVM Exceptions. +// See https://llvm.org/LICENSE.txt for license information. +// SPDX-License-Identifier:

[clang-tools-extra] Enforce SL.con.3: Add check to replace operator[] with at() (PR #90043)

@@ -0,0 +1,81 @@ +//===--- AvoidBoundsErrorsCheck.cpp - clang-tidy --===// +// +// Part of the LLVM Project, under the Apache License v2.0 with LLVM Exceptions. +// See https://llvm.org/LICENSE.txt for license information. +// SPDX-License-Identifier:

[clang-tools-extra] Enforce SL.con.3: Add check to replace operator[] with at() (PR #90043)

@@ -0,0 +1,81 @@ +//===--- AvoidBoundsErrorsCheck.cpp - clang-tidy --===// +// +// Part of the LLVM Project, under the Apache License v2.0 with LLVM Exceptions. +// See https://llvm.org/LICENSE.txt for license information. +// SPDX-License-Identifier:

[clang-tools-extra] Enforce SL.con.3: Add check to replace operator[] with at() (PR #90043)

@@ -0,0 +1,81 @@ +//===--- AvoidBoundsErrorsCheck.cpp - clang-tidy --===// +// +// Part of the LLVM Project, under the Apache License v2.0 with LLVM Exceptions. +// See https://llvm.org/LICENSE.txt for license information. +// SPDX-License-Identifier:

[clang-tools-extra] Enforce SL.con.3: Add check to replace operator[] with at() (PR #90043)

@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@ +.. title:: clang-tidy - cppcoreguidelines-avoid-bounds-errors + +cppcoreguidelines-avoid-bounds-errors += + +This check enforces the `SL.con.3

[clang-tools-extra] Enforce SL.con.3: Add check to replace operator[] with at() (PR #90043)

https://github.com/PiotrZSL edited https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90043 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[clang-tools-extra] Enforce SL.con.3: Add check to replace operator[] with at() (PR #90043)

@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@ +//===--- AvoidBoundsErrorsCheck.h - clang-tidy --*- C++ -*-===// +// +// Part of the LLVM Project, under the Apache License v2.0 with LLVM Exceptions. +// See https://llvm.org/LICENSE.txt for license information. +// SPDX-License-Identifier:

[clang-tools-extra] Enforce SL.con.3: Add check to replace operator[] with at() (PR #90043)

@@ -0,0 +1,81 @@ +//===--- AvoidBoundsErrorsCheck.cpp - clang-tidy --===// +// +// Part of the LLVM Project, under the Apache License v2.0 with LLVM Exceptions. +// See https://llvm.org/LICENSE.txt for license information. +// SPDX-License-Identifier:

[clang-tools-extra] Enforce SL.con.3: Add check to replace operator[] with at() (PR #90043)

https://github.com/PiotrZSL requested changes to this pull request. Idea is fine, implementation is lacking critical parts. Please check comments, fix them. If you will have some questions, just ask. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90043 ___

[clang-tools-extra] Enforce SL.con.3: Add check to replace operator[] with at() (PR #90043)

cor3ntin wrote: > Please note: the guidelines do not require one to replace [] with at(), > that's just one of the possible solutions. Actually at() is banned in many > codebases where exceptions are banned. > > It would be good to make this fix-it opt-in, configurable via option, so the >

[clang-tools-extra] Enforce SL.con.3: Add check to replace operator[] with at() (PR #90043)

carlosgalvezp wrote: Please note: the guidelines do not require one to replace [] with at(), that's just one of the possible solutions. Actually at() is banned in many codebases where exceptions are banned. It would be good to make this fix-it opt-in, configurable via option, so the check

[clang-tools-extra] Enforce SL.con.3: Add check to replace operator[] with at() (PR #90043)

@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@ +.. title:: clang-tidy - cppcoreguidelines-avoid-bounds-errors + +cppcoreguidelines-avoid-bounds-errors += + +This check enforces the `SL.con.3

[clang-tools-extra] Enforce SL.con.3: Add check to replace operator[] with at() (PR #90043)

@@ -131,6 +131,11 @@ New checks to reading out-of-bounds data due to inadequate or incorrect string null termination. +- New :doc:`cppcoreguidelines-avoid-bounds-errors + ` check. + + Flags the unsafe `operator[]` and replaces it with `at()`.

[clang-tools-extra] Enforce SL.con.3: Add check to replace operator[] with at() (PR #90043)

@@ -0,0 +1,81 @@ +//===--- AvoidBoundsErrorsCheck.cpp - clang-tidy --===// +// +// Part of the LLVM Project, under the Apache License v2.0 with LLVM Exceptions. +// See https://llvm.org/LICENSE.txt for license information. +// SPDX-License-Identifier:

[clang-tools-extra] Enforce SL.con.3: Add check to replace operator[] with at() (PR #90043)

@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@ +//===--- AvoidBoundsErrorsCheck.h - clang-tidy --*- C++ -*-===// +// +// Part of the LLVM Project, under the Apache License v2.0 with LLVM Exceptions. +// See https://llvm.org/LICENSE.txt for license information. +// SPDX-License-Identifier:

[clang-tools-extra] Enforce SL.con.3: Add check to replace operator[] with at() (PR #90043)

@@ -0,0 +1,81 @@ +//===--- AvoidBoundsErrorsCheck.cpp - clang-tidy --===// +// +// Part of the LLVM Project, under the Apache License v2.0 with LLVM Exceptions. +// See https://llvm.org/LICENSE.txt for license information. +// SPDX-License-Identifier:

[clang-tools-extra] Enforce SL.con.3: Add check to replace operator[] with at() (PR #90043)

@@ -0,0 +1,81 @@ +//===--- AvoidBoundsErrorsCheck.cpp - clang-tidy --===// +// +// Part of the LLVM Project, under the Apache License v2.0 with LLVM Exceptions. +// See https://llvm.org/LICENSE.txt for license information. +// SPDX-License-Identifier:

[clang-tools-extra] Enforce SL.con.3: Add check to replace operator[] with at() (PR #90043)

@@ -0,0 +1,81 @@ +//===--- AvoidBoundsErrorsCheck.cpp - clang-tidy --===// +// +// Part of the LLVM Project, under the Apache License v2.0 with LLVM Exceptions. +// See https://llvm.org/LICENSE.txt for license information. +// SPDX-License-Identifier:

[clang-tools-extra] Enforce SL.con.3: Add check to replace operator[] with at() (PR #90043)

llvmbot wrote: @llvm/pr-subscribers-clang-tidy Author: Sebastian Wolf (sebwolf-de) Changes The string based test to find out whether the check is applicable on the class is not ideal, but I did not find a more elegant way, yet. If there is more clang-query magic available, that I'm not

[clang-tools-extra] Enforce SL.con.3: Add check to replace operator[] with at() (PR #90043)

llvmbot wrote: @llvm/pr-subscribers-clang-tools-extra Author: Sebastian Wolf (sebwolf-de) Changes The string based test to find out whether the check is applicable on the class is not ideal, but I did not find a more elegant way, yet. If there is more clang-query magic available, that

[clang-tools-extra] Enforce SL.con.3: Add check to replace operator[] with at() (PR #90043)

github-actions[bot] wrote: Thank you for submitting a Pull Request (PR) to the LLVM Project! This PR will be automatically labeled and the relevant teams will be notified. If you wish to, you can add reviewers by using the "Reviewers" section on this page. If this is not working for you,

[clang-tools-extra] Enforce SL.con.3: Add check to replace operator[] with at() (PR #90043)

https://github.com/sebwolf-de created https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90043 The string based test to find out whether the check is applicable on the class is not ideal, but I did not find a more elegant way, yet. If there is more clang-query magic available, that I'm not aware of,