aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================
Comment at:
test/clang-tidy/cppcoreguidelines-pro-bounds-pointer-arithmetic.cpp:37
@@ +36,3 @@
+ q -= i;
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:5: warning: do not use pointer arithmetic
+ q -= ENUM_LITERAL;
----------------
I don't think this comment is "done" yet. I still don't know how this check is
intended to handle code like that. Does it currently diagnose? Does it not
diagnose? Should it diagnose?
================
Comment at:
test/clang-tidy/cppcoreguidelines-pro-bounds-pointer-arithmetic.cpp:51
@@ +50,3 @@
+
+ i = p[1];
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:7: warning: do not use pointer arithmetic
----------------
How well does this handle code like:
```
void f(int i[], size_t s) {
i[s - 1] = 0;
}
```
Does it diagnose, and should it?
http://reviews.llvm.org/D13311
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
