f00kat added a comment. In D76229#1925948 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D76229#1925948>, @lebedev.ri wrote:
> In D76229#1925371 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D76229#1925371>, @f00kat wrote: > > > In D76229#1925360 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D76229#1925360>, @lebedev.ri > > wrote: > > > > > This seems to be already handled by clang static analyzer? > > > (`clang-analyzer-cplusplus.PlacementNew`) > > > > > > <source>:19:5: warning: Storage provided to placement new is only 2 > > > bytes, whereas the allocated type requires 8 bytes > > > [clang-analyzer-cplusplus.PlacementNew] > > > ::new (&s1) long; > > > ^ > > > <source>:19:5: note: Storage provided to placement new is only 2 bytes, > > > whereas the allocated type requires 8 bytes > > > <source>:64:3: warning: Storage provided to placement new is only 2 > > > bytes, whereas the allocated type requires 8 bytes > > > [clang-analyzer-cplusplus.PlacementNew] > > > ::new (buffer3) long; > > > ^ > > > > > > > > > https://godbolt.org/z/9VX5WW > > > > > > But it seems like not all of my tests pass on static analyzer? > > > I have not really worked with static analyzer code, but assuming that those > cases > that are no longer diagnosed as compared to this clang-tidy checks *should* > be diagnosed > (i.e. diagnosing them isn't false-positive), then i'd think that static > analyzer check > simply needs some work? Yeah. You are right. I will try to improve exist checker. What we gonna do with this patch? Remove it? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D76229/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D76229 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
