argument in strncat.
The warning is ignored by default since it needs more qualification.
TODO: The warning message and the note are messy when
strncat is a builtin due to the macro expansion.
llvm-svn: 149524
and the programmer intended to write 'sizeof(*p)'. There are several
elements to the new version:
1) The actual expressions are compared in order to more accurately flag
the case where the pattern that works for an array has been used, or
a '*' has been omitted.
2) Only do a loose type-based check for record types. This prevents us
from warning when we happen to be copying around chunks of data the
size of a pointer and the pointer types for the sizeof and
source/dest match.
3) Move all the diagnostics behind the runtime diagnostic filter. Not
sure this is really important for this particular diagnostic, but
almost everything else in SemaChecking.cpp does so.
4) Make the wording of the diagnostic more precise and informative. At
least to my eyes.
5) Provide highlighting for the two expressions which had the unexpected
similarity.
6) Place this diagnostic under a flag: -Wsizeof-pointer-memaccess
This uses the Stmt::Profile system for computing #1. Because of the
potential cost, this is guarded by the warning flag. I'd be interested
in feedback on how bad this is in practice; I would expect it to be
quite cheap in practice. Ideas for a cheaper / better way to do this are
also welcome.
The diagnostic wording could likely use some further wordsmithing.
Suggestions welcome here. The goals I had were to: clarify that its the
interaction of 'memset' and 'sizeof' and give more reasonable
suggestions for a resolution.
An open question is whether these diagnostics should have the note
attached for silencing by casting the dest/source pointer to void*.
llvm-svn: 133155
argument types for mem{set,cpy,move}. Character pointers, much like void
pointers, often point to generic "memory", so trying to check whether
they match the type of the argument to 'sizeof' (or other checks) is
unproductive and often results in false positives.
Nico, please review; does this miss any of the bugs you were trying to
find with this warning? The array test case you had should be caught by
the array-specific sizeof warning I think.
llvm-svn: 133136
Nico Weber