tbaeder added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/AST/Interp/ByteCodeExprGen.cpp:1098-1099
+
+ unsigned N = SL->getLength();
+ for (size_t I = 0; I != NumElems; ++I) {
+ uint32_t CodePoint = I < N ? SL->getCodeUnit(I) : 0;
----------------
tbaeder wrote:
> tahonermann wrote:
> > tahonermann wrote:
> > > Aren't `N` and `NumElems` guaranteed to have the same value here? Both
> > > are derived from `SL`. The code seems to be written with the expectation
> > > that `NumElems` corresponds to the number of elements to be iniitialized
> > > in the target array.
> > I see the change to now use the minimum of `SL->getLength()` and
> > `CAT->getSize().getZExtValue()`. Based on https://godbolt.org/z/5sTWExTac
> > this looks to be unnecessary. When a string literal is used as an array
> > initializer, it appears that the type of the string literal is adjusted to
> > match the size of the array being initialized. I suggest using only
> > `CAT->getSize().getZExtValue()` and adding a comment that this code depends
> > on that adjustment.
> That is good to know and makes sense, thanks!
That actually doesn't work. They type might be adjusted, but `getCodeUnit()`
still asserts that the index is `< getLength()`. :(
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D137488/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D137488
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
